JUDGMENT : P.K. Misra, J. - Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for opposite party. It appears that a proceeding for dissolution of marriage is pending before the Judge, Family Court. The present petitioner filed an application for payment of interim maintenance and litigation expenses which has been numbered as Misc. Case No. 124 of 1998. The grievance of the petitioner is that without disposing of such application, the Judge, Family Court, has proceeded to take evidence in the main proceeding itself. The second grievance of the petitioner is that one witness was examined on behalf of the present opposite party and cross-examined even though the Lawyer of the petitioner was not present. 2. Both the grievances of the petitioner appear to be justified. In a proceeding under the Hindu Marriage Act, it is reasonable to conclude that application for interim maintenance and litigation expenses should be disposed of before the main matter is taken up for disposal on merit. 3. The learned Counsel for the husband stated that the petitioner-wife is herself earning and no interim maintenance is payable. Whether the wife is entitled to interim maintenance or not is to be decided by the Judge, Family Court. I do not express any opinion on this aspect. The Judge, Family Court, is directed to first dispose of the miscellaneous case numbered as Misc. Case No. 124 of 1998 before proceeding to decide the main case on merit. The application for interim maintenance and litigation expenses should be disposed of as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. After the application for payment of interim maintenance all litigation expenses is disposed of, the present petitioner shall be given opportunity of filing written statement. It goes without saying that after disposal of the application for interim maintenance, the Trial Court is free to dispose of the main case as expeditiously as possible. It is however, made clear that no opinion has been expressed as to whether any interim maintenance is payable or not arid the matter has to be decided in accordance with law on the basis of materials available on record. 4. It is however, made clear that no opinion has been expressed as to whether any interim maintenance is payable or not arid the matter has to be decided in accordance with law on the basis of materials available on record. 4. So far as the second grievance of the petitioner relating to examination and cross-examination of one witness is concerned, I deem it just and proper in the interest of justice to direct the Judge, Family Court, to recall P.W. 1 for further cross-examination by the Lawyer of the present petitioner. It goes without saying that both parties shall be given adequate opportunity of adducing further evidence thereafter. Subject to the aforesaid directions, the writ application is disposed of. This order shall be communicated to the Judge, Family Court.