A.B. PAL, J.— The judgment dated 25.5.98 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in T.S. (RCR) 30 of 97 allowing the suit with direction to the appellant-wife herein to go to the house of her husband, the respondent herein, within a period of one month and to live in the matrimonial house as husband and wife is under challenge in this appeal. 2. The respondent-husband herein who is a class-TV employee under the Government married the appellant herein on 22.9.88. But the conjugal tie stumbled from discords during a span of four years. They have no issue. The respondent-husband has 3 sisters to support by his meagre income. According to his version, the appellant used to leave his house and stay with her parents on her whims without caring the conjugal obligation on her part. He was, thus, deprived of the care and happiness which as a spouse he could reasonably expect from her. On the contrary, her irrational behaviour generated bitterness only straining their conjugal relation. On 12.7.92, she left her matrimonial home finally for her parents house. When all attempts on his part to bring her back failed, the respondent-hus-band issued notice to her in writing on 30.8.93 to return home and live a conjugal life with him. Though she received the notice on 4.9.93, she preferred not to respond. Instead, she approached a family counselling centre where he also attended after being summoned. During the course of counselling she persistently put forward a condition that the respondent should agree to live with her separately from his sisters. Such a proposal disowning his liabilities to maintain his sisters was not acceptable to him. As the counselling proved to be futile, he filed a divorce suit against her which was registered as TS (Divorce) No. 03 of 1994 on grounds of desertion, cruelty and separate living for more than a year on the part of the appellant-wife. Shecontested the suit and claimed interim maintenance in a prayer under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short, 'the Act'). According to the respondent-husband, the said court allowed interim maintenance and directed him to pay Rs. 5,000/- which he failed to pay as his salary was not enough to comply with the said order. Because of the non-compliance, the divorce petition was dismissed. Thereafter, he has approached this court (Addl. According to the respondent-husband, the said court allowed interim maintenance and directed him to pay Rs. 5,000/- which he failed to pay as his salary was not enough to comply with the said order. Because of the non-compliance, the divorce petition was dismissed. Thereafter, he has approached this court (Addl. District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala) by filing the instant suit for restitution of conjugal right. 3. In the impugned judgment decreeing the suit as noted above, the learned Addl. District Judge observed that the appellant-wife herein did not contest the suit by filing written statement for which the case was fixed for experte hearing. According to him, he made several attempts to reconcile the matter, but the appellant-wife herein did not attend, though the husband appeared every time. On the date of exparte hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant-wife herein appeared before the learned trial court and prayed for cross-examining the respondent husband. The said prayer was allowed and the husband was examined and cross-examined. Thereafter, considering the fact that the husband and wife had been living separately since 12.7.92 though the husband was willing to live with his wife, a direction was given for restitution of conjugal right. The relevant part of the observation which is now, in our opinion, necessary for adverting to the controversy raised in the appeal may be quoted as follows: "It may be mentioned here that I have tried to reconcile the matter and asked both the parties to appear before me. But on several occasions though the petitioner appeared before the court but the O.P. wife never appeared before the court. However, the opposite party thereafter asked to file written statement but she did not file any written statement for which the case was fixed for experte hearing. On the date of examination of the petitioner learned counsel for the opposite party wife appeared before the court and prays for allowing him to cross-examine the petitioner. His prayer was allowed. Petitioner was examined, cross-examined on 18.5.98. On that date I have heard the argument of the learned counsel of the parties. There is no dispute that the petitioner and the respondent are husband and wife. His prayer was allowed. Petitioner was examined, cross-examined on 18.5.98. On that date I have heard the argument of the learned counsel of the parties. There is no dispute that the petitioner and the respondent are husband and wife. It also appear that since 12.7.98 the respondent is living separately and in spite of the request of the petitioner she is not coming to live with the petitioner as husband and wife Petitioner and the respondent are husband and wife and the petitioner is willing to take the opposite party to his house to live with her as husband and wife and as there is no allegation against the petitioner that the life of the respondent will be in danger if she goes and live with the petitioner. In view of the above, I think that the petition should be allowed which I hereby do." 4. After perusal of the records, we have, however, noticed that the appellant-wife filed a written statement in the above suit on 26.8.97 which seems to have escaped the notice of the learned Addl. District Judge. In the said written statement, she categorically stated that in the divorce suit filed by her husband, she appeared and presented a prayer for maintenance under Section 24 of the Act which was allowed by an order dated 23.12.94. The learned trial court directed her husband to pay her Rs. 2507- per month as interim maintenance and Rs. 4007- as expenses of litigation. The monthly maintenance was allowed with effect from 1.1.94 and, therefore, an amount of Rs. 3,0007- was accumulated on the date of the said order. Thus, the learned trial court directed the respondent-husband to pay Rs. 3000+Rs. 400 = Rs. 34007- within a period of three months from the date of that order. The respondent husband herein, however, did not obey the said direction and consequently on 20.9.95, the learned trial court passed an order staying the divorce proceeding for non-compliance of the order for maintenance passed on 23.12.94. Both the orders dated 23.12.94 for maintenance and 20.9.95 staying the divorce proceeding were, however, put into challenge by the respondent husband in F.A. No. 03 of 96 before this court. A separate prayer for staying the operation of the above two orders was also filed which was registered as Civil Misc No. 10 of 96. Both the orders dated 23.12.94 for maintenance and 20.9.95 staying the divorce proceeding were, however, put into challenge by the respondent husband in F.A. No. 03 of 96 before this court. A separate prayer for staying the operation of the above two orders was also filed which was registered as Civil Misc No. 10 of 96. A Division Bench of this court by order dated 23.5.96 dismissed both the appeal and the misc petition. In view of her version noed above, it is her submission that as a result of the order of this court dismissing the first appeal, the orders dated 23.12.94 and 20.9.95 of the learned trial court relating to maintenance and stay of the divorce proceeding became final. In other words, the respondent-husband is liable to pay the maintenance and arrear thereof in terms of the order date l 23.12.94 in order to lift the stay of the divorce proceeding which is still pending. In the above premises, it is her stand that an experte decree for restitution of conjugal right is misconceived and unsustainable in law. 5. We have heard Mr. P. R. Barman, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S. M. Chakraborty, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. A. Sengupta, learned advocate for the respondent. 6. As we have already noticed, the fact that the appellant-wife submitted a written statement giving her version about the marital discord seemed to have escaped the notice of the learned Addl. District Judge. The question that has surfaced is whether a divorce proceeding was pending when the present suit for restitution of conjugal right was filed. In his deposition as the only witness on his side, the respondent-husband, when asked in cross about the fate of the divorce proceeding, replied, "I cannot say whether I got the case." On the other hand, the appellant-wife has pleaded in her written statement that the divorce proceeding was still pending after dismissal of the First Appeal No. 03 of 96 by order dated 23.5.96 passed by this court and in the absence of any material to the contrary, we find no reason to take a view that the divorce proceeding was closed at the time when the suit for restitution for conjugal right was instituted by the respondent-husband. We have further noticed that though the counsel for the appellant-wife herein was allowed by the trial court to cross-examine the respondent-husband, no scope was given to her to adduce any evidence. The relevant order in the order sheet dated 18.5.98 reads thus- "Petitioner is present with his engaged lawyer. Learned counsel for the opposite party is also present and he verbally prays for allowing him to cross-examine the petitioner. Heard and considered. His prayer is allowed. Petitioner is examined, cross-examined and discharged. Heard argument. Fix 25.5.98 forjudgment." 7. From the above, we find that (I) the suit for restitution for conjugal right was filed during pendency of the divorce proceeding; (II) though the appellant-wife entered appearance and filed written statement, the learned trial court fixed the case for expert hearing; (III) though the lawyer of the appellant-wife was allowed to cross-examine the respondent-husband, no date was fixed to enable her to present herself or others as witnesses; (IV) the respondent-husbandis admittedly a class IV employee under the Government but he refused to pay anything towards maintenance to the appellant wife in spite of the order dated 23.12.94 in the divorce proceeding; (V) the respondent-husband did not disclose that because of his failure to comply with the direction to pay the maintenance, the learned trial court by order dated 20.9.95 stayed the divorce proceeding against which he filed the First Appeal No. 3 of 96, but lost the same. f 8. In view of the discussions and reasons noted above, this appeal appears to have merit and the same is accordingly accepted. The impugned judgment and order of the learned trial court being unsustainable in law is hereby set aside. As the respondent -husband did not pay the monthly maintenance and expenses of litigation with effect from 1.1.94 in terms of the order dated 23.12.94, we direct that the Drawing and Disbursing Officer (DDO) of the respondent-husband shall deduct every month from his salary Rs. 250/- being monthly maintenance and Rs. 5,00/- being instalment of the arrear maintenance and remit the same to the appellant-wife within first week of every month. She may also opt for personally collecting the amount from the office of her husband. The instalment of Rs. 500/- shall be deducted and paid till the entire arrear of maintenance is paid off. Thereafter, only the monthly maintenance shall be deducted and paid to her. She may also opt for personally collecting the amount from the office of her husband. The instalment of Rs. 500/- shall be deducted and paid till the entire arrear of maintenance is paid off. Thereafter, only the monthly maintenance shall be deducted and paid to her. The amount of first deduction to be made in the first week of April, 2006 shall be Rs. 250/- (monthly maintenance) + Rs. 500/- (arrear maintenance) + Rs. 400/-(expenses of litigation), total Rs. 1150/-(rupees one thousand one hundred and fifty) only. It is made clear that this being maintenance pendente lite the same shall be paid only during the pendency of the divorce proceeding. Needless to say, that after the proceeding, the wife shall be at liberty to approach for maintenance either under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act or under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, if so advised. There shall be no order as to cost.