Heard Sri Ritu Raj learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Javed Murtaza appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1. 2. The instant appeal arises against the judgment and order dated 22-12-2001 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow in proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The brief facts of the case are that a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the respondent No. 1 on 18- 11-1998 praying for a decree of divorce against the appellant and later on one Sri D. D. Shukla was impleaded as opposite party by the order dated 31-7-2000. During the pendency of the proceedings, an application was moved by the appellant under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. On the said application the Principal Judge, Family Court after hearing both the parties at length passed an order on 5-1-2000 awarding an interim maintenance of Rs. 1,000 per month and Rs. 3,000 towards the expenses of the litigation. The respondent No. 1 initially paid some amount to the appellant but after February 2001 no payment was made, despite repeated applications moved by the appellant and despite orders of the Court dated 30-8-2001 and 27-9-2001. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant stated that till compliance of the order passed under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act is made, no further proceedings in the case should have been continued. It was further contended that in this case 7-12-2001 was fixed for evidence and subsequently 11-12-2001, 20- 12-2001, 21-12-2001 and then 22-12-2001 were fixed and on 22-12- 2001 the impugned judgment was pronounced without affording any opportunity to the appellant. The impugned judgment has been passed in a most arbitrary and illegal manner. 4. On behalf of the respondent Sri Javed Murtaza has submitted that there is no illegality in the judgment and order dated 22-12-2001. According to him the appellant was resorting to delaying tactics since the very inception of the proceedings. Several opportunities were afforded to the appellant to adduce evidence but no evidence was adduced by the appellant and the Presiding Officer has no option except to decide the case on the basis of material which was available on record. According to him the appellant was resorting to delaying tactics since the very inception of the proceedings. Several opportunities were afforded to the appellant to adduce evidence but no evidence was adduced by the appellant and the Presiding Officer has no option except to decide the case on the basis of material which was available on record. It was further contended that the appeal preferred by the appellant is incompetent as she, herself made a statement before the Family Court that she is not interested to live with respondent No. 1 and she does not want any compensation. 5. We have considered the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 6. It is not disputed that on the application of the appellant under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, an order was passed on 5-1-2000, awarding an interim maintenance of Rs. 1,000 per month and Rs. 3,000 towards the expenses of the litigation. It is also not disputed that initially respondent No. 1 paid some amount to the appellant but thereafter the same was stopped. At no stage of the proceedings, complete compliance of the order dated 5-1-2000 was made by the respondent No. 1, despite subsequent orders of the Court. It is quite strange that the Presiding Officer continued further proceedings without getting the compliance of the orders passed under Section 24 of the Act which was not only must but also in consonance with the aims and objects of the provisions as enshrined therein. When orders are passed by the Court it is abundant duty of the Court to see that its orders are complied with in letter and spirit and are not being flouted as having been done in the present case. 7. It is not the end but a perusal of the record reveals that 7- 12-2001 was fixed for evidence, on which date ex parte order against Opposite Party No. 2 was set aside and next date 11-12-2001 was fixed for remaining evidence and disposal. On that date i. e. 7-12-2001 no evidence appears to have been recorded. It is surprising that statement of the respondent No. 1 recorded on 7-12-2001 on a separate sheet is available on record. In any view of the matter, on 11-12-2001 the appellant was present, on which date she made a statement that Rs. On that date i. e. 7-12-2001 no evidence appears to have been recorded. It is surprising that statement of the respondent No. 1 recorded on 7-12-2001 on a separate sheet is available on record. In any view of the matter, on 11-12-2001 the appellant was present, on which date she made a statement that Rs. 14,000 are due against the respondent No. 1-Hero Bajpai and till the said payment is made she requested not to proceed with the case any further. This amount of Rs. 14,000 obviously looks to be due towards maintenance and litigation expenses. On that date the respondent No. 1 also moved an application and a date as 20-12-2001 was fixed for orders. On 20-12- 2001 the Presiding Officer was on leave and so 21-12-2001 was fixed. On 21-12-2001 the Steno of the Court was on leave and so 22-12-2001 was fixed. On 22-12- 2001 in the impugned judgment was pronounced. 8. On all these dates, as referred to above, no date for evidence of the appellant was fixed. The appellant was also not afforded an opportunity to cross-examine respondent No. 1 whose statement on separate sheet is available on record. Neither the evidence of the appellant was closed nor any date for argument was fixed. 20-12-2001 was fixed for orders on the question of payment of maintenance allowance and litigation expenses and also on the application (C-98) moved by the respondent No. 1 under Order XVII, Rule 2 and 3 read with Sections 151 C. P. C. We are sorry to say that no orders either on the question of payment of maintenance or litigation expenses or on the application C-98 was passed either on that date or on any subsequent date but all of sudden this impugned judgment was passed. The way Presiding Officer has proceeded and dealt with the case is a matter of grave concern and deserves to be condemned. We find force in the contention of the appellant that the Presiding Officer has acted in a most arbitrary and illegal manner. 9. The contention of the learned Counsel of respondent No. 1 that the appeal is not maintainable as a statement was made by the appellant before the Family Court that she is not interested to live with respondent No. 1 and that she does not want any compensation in the matter is without any force. 9. The contention of the learned Counsel of respondent No. 1 that the appeal is not maintainable as a statement was made by the appellant before the Family Court that she is not interested to live with respondent No. 1 and that she does not want any compensation in the matter is without any force. It appears from the record that from the very initial stage the appellant was prosecuting and participating in the case and insisting the compliance of the order dated 5-1-2000 passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and after the impugned judgment she had also filed this appeal. 10. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that since no opportunity was given to the appellant to adduce evidence the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Family Court is legally not maintainable. 11. In the result, the appeal succeeds and the impugned judgment and decree dated 22-12-2001 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow is hereby set aside. The case is remanded back to the respondent No. 2 for decision afresh, in accordance with law, after affording opportunity to the affected parties. During the pendency of the case before the Family Court, the appellant shall be entitled for the benefit of the order dated 5-1-2000 which was passed in the proceedings under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. In the circumstance, there shall be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed. .