MANMOHAN SARIN ( 1 ) THE petitioner has filed this petition Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 17-7-1995, passed by the Additional District Judge, herein after referred to as the impugned order. The learned Additional District Judge by the impugned order dismissed the petitioner s application Under Section 151 C. P. C. praying for disposal of her maintenance application dated 25-8-1991 Under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act herein after referred to as the Act, prior to the petitioner cross-examining her respondent husband, who has filed the petition for divorce. ( 2 ) THE learned Additional District Judge dismissed the application with cost of Rs. 500. 00 and granted adjournment on further cost of Rs. 1000. 00. The learned Additional District Judge had passed the impugned order in view of an earlier order dated 24-1-1994, by which parties were directed to lead evidence on the main petition as well as on the application Under Section 24 of Act. He held that the petitioner s application was a belated one, being filed more than a year and half after the order dated 24-1-1994, with the object of delaying the proceedings in the main petition. The petition for divorce was filed in December, 1989 by the respondent husband, yet the same remained at the stage of evidence. ( 3 ) THE petitioner in the present petition has sought the following reliefs:- (A) Allow the aforesaid application Under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and (B) Direct the petitioner husband to pay immediately a sum of Rs. 15,000. 00 towards litigation expenses and (C) direct the petitioner to pay Rs. 8000. 00 P. M. towards maintenance pendentelite and (D) make such other for further orders as this Hon ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. ( 4 ) A show cause notice was issued on the petition on 1-8-1995 and reply to the petition has been filed. The parties have also filed additional affidavits. Counsel for the parties have also been heard in support of their respective contentions.- ( 5 ) THE undisputed facts in brief are as under:- (I) The petitioner was married to the respondent on 18-6-1986 at Muzaffarpur, Bihar. A son was born on 10-6-1987 to the petitioner and respondent, who is with the respondent and is being looked after by him. A son was born on 10-6-1987 to the petitioner and respondent, who is with the respondent and is being looked after by him. The respondent husband is a lecturer in Satyawati College, Delhi. (II) The marriage did not proceed well and the respondent husband filed a petition for divorce No. 15/89 in Muzaffarpur on the ground of the petitioner suffering from mental disorder. This petition was withdrawn by the respondent, after the petitioner had filed a transfer application in Supreme Court. The respondent/husband filed a petition for divorce on grounds of cruelty in December, 1989. (III) The petitioner is a Law Graduate and is enrolled as an Advocate since December 1991. Earlier the petitioner was having an assignment in the social organization "adithi" where she was getting Rs 2500. 00 P. M. till 31-7-1991. ( 6 ) THE petitioner was served with the notice of divorce petition in February, 1990. The application for maintenance U/s 24 of the Act was moved on 23-8-1991, the date when the issues were framed. The petitioner claims that after her assignment with "adithi" came to an end, she has no means of support. It is her case that as a Junior Advocate she is still struggling, not having sufficient means to support herself During the hearing of the petition before me, it was stated that while working for a Senior colleague, she was getting a stipend of Rs. 800. 00 P. M. and was now she earning Rs. 1500. 00 P. M. , which is not sufficient for her to keep residence and maintain herself. The petitioner is presently staying in a Flat No. R-4196, Pitam Pura, New Delhi, which she claims was purchased by the respondent out of her Istridhan and funds given by her parents. The Flat was purchased by the respondent in the name of her mother. The petitioner and respondent cohabited together at this flat and she continued to reside there. The respondent s mother has filed a suit for ejectment of the petitioner, claiming mesne profits at Rs. 2000. 00 P. M. ( 7 ) THE petitioner claims that the respondent is a lecturer at Satyawati Coeducation (evening) College having a salary of Rs. 4100. 00 P. M In addition to the salaried income, the respondent has income of Rs. 35000. 00 P. A. from other sources. 2000. 00 P. M. ( 7 ) THE petitioner claims that the respondent is a lecturer at Satyawati Coeducation (evening) College having a salary of Rs. 4100. 00 P. M In addition to the salaried income, the respondent has income of Rs. 35000. 00 P. A. from other sources. The respondent, according to her, is also engaged in partnership business with his father, who has an X-ray Clinic and Laboratory etc. The respondent, according to the petitioner has purchased another ground floor flat beaming No. 41/96, Gulmohar Park, New Delhi for Rs. 15 Lakhs. The respondent has refuted these allegations stating that he has no interest in his father business and only has income from salary. The respondent has to incur considerable expenses on the maintenance and education of his son. According to the respondent, the petitioner is a successful Advocate. She argues cases in Supreme Court and High Court and has attached press reports regarding the cases argued by the petitioner. The petitioner according to respondent has an income of Rs. 30,0007- P. M. and needs no maintenance. The respondent claims that petitioner being a lawyer is harassing him with number of cases. She drives a car which carries a Supreme Court Bar Association Sticker and which was purchased in the name of her brother. The respondent also contends that the petitioner is guilty of deliberate concealment of facts regarding her income and making false representation of not having a bank Account. The application for maintenance was liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. The respondent had relied on AIR 1985 Vol. II HLR 650 and AIR 1994 Supreme Court 853. ( 8 ) THE rival contention of the parties on the merits of the maintenance application, are the subject matter on the maintenance application pending before the trial court. Counsel for the petitioner had urged before me that parties had place all the records sufficient for disposal of the maintenance application are available in this petition and the court in the excercise of its jurisdiction Under Article 227 of Consitution of India should dispose of the maintenance application itself as the matter has also been argued. I am not persuaded to do so. The nature of the allegations and counter allegation are such that these should be decided by the trial court and if necessary, on the evidence produced before it. I am not persuaded to do so. The nature of the allegations and counter allegation are such that these should be decided by the trial court and if necessary, on the evidence produced before it. ( 9 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner then argued that the impugned order nullifies the object of the provision Under Section 24 of the Act to provide necessary support and maintenance to the contesting spouse during the litigation. Further that the petitioner wife should not be compelled to contest the divorce petition without disposal of the application Under Section 24 of the Act, which would provide her the means for contesting the petition. Counsel for the petitioner relied on AIR 1977 Delhi, 76 to support the view that the decision on the application Under Section 24 of the Act should not be deferred till the decision of the main petition and that the defences raised in the petition should not affect the exercise of power Under Section 24 of the Act. There can be no dispute with the proposition that the application Under Section 24 of the Act should be expeditiously disposed of. Let us see the position in the present case. The written statement was not filed by the petitioner till 4-1-1991. The petitioner had even been proceeded ex parte and her application Under Section 26 for custody was also dismissed in default. The delays prior to 23-8-1991, are more on account of the petitioner. As noticed earlier, it was only on 23-8-1991, when issues were framed that the petitioner moved the application for maintenance Under Section 24 of the Act. The reply to the application was filed on 11-11-1991. Thereafter, time was taken to file rejoinder. The significant date is 5-2-1992, when the application for maintenance Under Section 24 of the Act was argued and had been reserved for orders. It was then that the respondent moved an application Under Order XI Rule 14 and Order XVI read with Order XVIII Rule 17ac. P. C. The case was then adjourned for notices on these applications and : replies thereto. The respondent thereafter, also moved an application for transfer of the petition to another court. Counsel for the respondent even sought to withdraw his appearance in the case and another counsel appeared on behalf of the respondent. Adjournments were taken on this account. P. C. The case was then adjourned for notices on these applications and : replies thereto. The respondent thereafter, also moved an application for transfer of the petition to another court. Counsel for the respondent even sought to withdraw his appearance in the case and another counsel appeared on behalf of the respondent. Adjournments were taken on this account. On 1-12-199 , counsel for the petitioner stated in Court that the petitioner had no Bank Account and Bank deposit. The petitioner was then directed to be present in Court so that her statement could be recorded. She was directed to produce electricity and water bills of the flat in which she was staying. The respondent being given liberty of cross-examining the petitioner. It was on 24-1 -1994, Court directed that the evidence in the main petition as well as on application Under Section 24 of the Act be recorded. This order was not assailed by the petitioner. Counsel for the respondent urged that the present petition has been filed belatedly as the order directing the recording of evidence in the divorce application as well as I the application for maintenance was passed on 24-1-1994 and parties even subsequently on 6-7-1994 accepted an agreed date for recording of evidence. The statement of the respondent was been partly recorded on 26-10-1994. ( 10 ) FROM the aforesaid narration of events of the proceedings before the trial court, it would be seen, case prior to framing of the issues was delayed on account of the petitioner. After the framing of the issues and filing of the application for maintenance, it was the respondent who delayed the disposal of the maintenance application by moving different applications. Once the case had been fixed for. recording of evidence in the petition as well as the maitenance application, the petitioner had been delaying the cross-examination of the respondent. Be it may, the fact remains that the maintenace application Under Section 24 of the Act, though heard and at one stage reserved for orders on 5-2-1992, has not been disposed of over four years. ( 11 ) THE application for maintenance Under Section 24 of the Act deserves to be disposed of expeditiously without getting lost in the quagmire of inherent procedural delays in trial or those engineered by the parties. ( 11 ) THE application for maintenance Under Section 24 of the Act deserves to be disposed of expeditiously without getting lost in the quagmire of inherent procedural delays in trial or those engineered by the parties. Accordingly, the impugned order in as far as it directs that the evidence in application Under Section 24 of the Act, to be led alongwith the main petition and imposes costs deserves to set aside. Certain directions to provide some relief to the petitioner are also warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The statement of the respondent husband i. e. examination in chief was recorded on 26-10-1994. It is necessary to complete his cross-examination without further delay. ( 12 ) THE petition is partly allowed and disposed of with the following directions. (I) The impugned order dated 17-7-1995, dismissing the application of the petitioner seeking disposal of the application Under Section 24 of the Act and imposing costs is hereby set aside. (II) The prayer of the petitioner for disposal of the maintenace application by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction Under Article 227 of Consitution of India is declined. (III) The respondent shall deposit a sum of Rs. 22000. 00 in the trial court by two pay orders of Rs. 12. 000. 00 and Rs. 10,000. 00 respectively in the name of the petitioner within 30 days from today. The pay order of Rs. 12,000. 00 would be released unconditionally to the petitioner. The balance amount of Rs. 10,000. 00 would be released against security subject to the satisfaction of the trial court. The above amounts directed to be deposited in Court and paid to petitioner are on account and purely as an interim measure, subject to adjustment/refund/further payment as the case may be, in accordance with the decision of the application Under Section 24 of the Act by the trial court. (IV) That only after the deposit of the aforesaid amount in the Court by the respondent, the petitioner would be called upon to complete the cross-examination of the respondent. Immediately upon completion of the cross-examination of the respondent, the trial court shall proceed to decide the maintenance appplication Under Section 24 of the Act after recording of evidence, if required. The recording of remaining evidence in the divorce petition would be taken up by the court after the application for maintenance has been disposed of.