JUDGMENT By the impugned order the trial Court has rejected an application u/s. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short 'the Act'), moved by the wife, in proceedings for divorce. The Court has observed in the penultimate paragraph of the order that it was true that u/s. 24 of the Act the Non-applicant-wife should be granted interim maintenance but it appeared to the Court from the pleadings in the case that the financial status of the parents of the N.A./wife is not such that the N.A./wife would starve. This is hardly a judicial order. The impugned order, therefore, is liable to be set-aside. I examined the material put by the parties on record in connection with application for interim maintenance and I find that sufficient material for decision of the question of interim maintenance has not been put on record by both the parties. The wife has alleged that the husband has an income of Rs. 6,000/- p.m. and is engaged in a lucrative business of renting out V.C.R., Video Cassette, T. V. etc. It has also been alleged that a Kirana Shop is also being run by the husband. The husband has, while denying these allegations, alleged that a large amount is lying in deposit in the Bank Account of the defendant/wife and earning from interest on that account is Rs. 1,000/- p.m. It has also been alleged that the wife had received enough property from her father and she is also a partner in business with her father. Affidavits have been filed along with the application and reply. The cross-examination on the affidavits has not been sought by the parties before the trial Court. In the aforesaid circumstances it would be proper to make a direction that the application u/s. 24 of the Act shall be decided by the trial Court afresh after giving opportunity to parties to file affidavits in detail and permit them to cross-examine each other on those affidavits. Parties shall put before the Court entire documentary material also in their possession. However, it is clarified that the Court shall not permit the witnesses to be examined on this application as otherwise it will result into a trial within trial and unnecessary time will be lost. Instead the Court shall endeavour to dispose of the main case expeditiously. Parties shall put before the Court entire documentary material also in their possession. However, it is clarified that the Court shall not permit the witnesses to be examined on this application as otherwise it will result into a trial within trial and unnecessary time will be lost. Instead the Court shall endeavour to dispose of the main case expeditiously. After giving opportunity to the parties as aforesaid, the application u/s. 24 of the Act shall be decided by the Court within 2 months. Record of the case be sent back immediately. Parties to appear before that Court on 30.3.1992. With these directions the case stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Y. I. Mehta for applicant; K.P. Gupta for non-applicant.