JUDGMENT Dr. B.R. SARANGI, J. 1. The husband-petitioner has filed the writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.6243 of 2011 challenging the order dated 10.2.2011 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar in I.A. No.305 of 2010 arising out of C.P. No.322 of 2010 directing him to pay a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month (Rs.7,000/- to the wife-opposite party and Rs.5,000/- to the son) as interim maintenance from the date of filing of the application, i.e. from 26.4.2010 considering the application filed by the wife-opposite party under Section.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. In the said order, the learned Judge has also directed the husband-petitioner to pay arrear maintenance within a period of two months and current maintenance by 10th of each succeeding month. 2. Appellant-husband. has also filed MATA No.73 of 2011 challenging the ex parte order dated 17.8.2011 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Berhampur in C.P. No.589 of 2010 dismissing the application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage. 3. As both the matters arise out of the same matrimonial dispute between the same parties, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order. 4. The factual matrix of the case in hand is that the husband-petitioner married to the opposite party on 10.7.1993 as per the Hindu Customs and Rites. The husband-petitioner alleged that the wife-opposite party had earlier married to one Anil Kumar Pradhan fraudulently and knowing the said fact, her parents had got her marriage solemnized with the petitioner hurriedly to keep the family prestige. The said fact of marriage alliance of the opposite party with Anil which was known to her father was brought to the notice of the husband-petitioner in the first night by the opposite party herself. On being .approached, father of the wife-opposite party remained apologetic because the marriage had been solemnized fraudulently, which was within his knowledge. In order to upkeep the family prestige, the wife-opposite party continued good relationship with the husband-petitioner and a male child was born to her on 6.3.1995. The husband-petitioner alleged that the wife-opposite party continued to have adulterous relationship with Anil, who was caught red-handed by his sister while coming out of his quarters. While at Sambalpur, the wife-opposite party developed intimacy with one Md. Faiz @ Raja about which none other than the wife of Md. Faiz complained to the District Judge, Sambalpur. The husband-petitioner alleged that the wife-opposite party continued to have adulterous relationship with Anil, who was caught red-handed by his sister while coming out of his quarters. While at Sambalpur, the wife-opposite party developed intimacy with one Md. Faiz @ Raja about which none other than the wife of Md. Faiz complained to the District Judge, Sambalpur. After enquiry by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the matter was subsided and the wife-opposite party admitted her guilt, which was condoned by the husband-petitioner on the advice of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The husband-petitioner alleged that the wife-opposite party continued to have her sexual activities uninhibited with other persons at different stations he was posted thereafter. While the husband-petitioner was posted at Paralakhemundi, the wife-opposite party left his company and did not return to his fold since then and her whereabouts along with her son could not be known despite his report to the police and a station diary entry made in the Police Station to that effect. Despite registered notice to the wife-opposite party, she did not join. Therefore, it is she who voluntarily withdrew from the society of the husband-petitioner without any just cause. The husband-petitioner alleged that the wife-opposite party not only led an adulterous life but also deserted him at her will to bring an end to her mutual co-habitation permanently. Therefore, the husband-petitioner is entitled for a decree of divorce in view of the aforesaid misconduct of the wife-opposite party and, therefore he claims for dissolution of the marriage. 5. The wife-opposite party is gainfully employed and is working as a Mathematics Teacher in Prabhuji English Medium School. Besides that she is doing tuition and is earning Rs.25,000/- out of the same and is leading comfortable life. That apart, she possessed a land in the prime location of mouza Jagamara of Bhubaneswar, the market value of which would be more than one crore. Therefore, she has sufficient income of her own to maintain herself and her son and does not require any permanent alimony. The husband-petitioner filed C.P. No.589 of 2010 before the learned Judge, Family Court, Berhampur for dissolution of marriage for a decree of divorce and also filed an application for DNA test to establish the parentage of the son. 6. Therefore, she has sufficient income of her own to maintain herself and her son and does not require any permanent alimony. The husband-petitioner filed C.P. No.589 of 2010 before the learned Judge, Family Court, Berhampur for dissolution of marriage for a decree of divorce and also filed an application for DNA test to establish the parentage of the son. 6. The wife-opposite party filed Civil Suit No. 703 of 2010 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar under Sections 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 seeking for decree of maintenance of Rs.10,000/- each for herself and her son per month from the husband-petitioner. In the said application, the wife-opposite party claimed that her marriage with the petitioner was solemnized on 10.7.1993 in the premises of her father as per Hindu Rites and Customs and since they are Brahmins by birth, the marriage was regulated under the Hindu Marriage Act and out of their wed-lock the son was born on 6.3.1995. By the time the suit was filed, the son was aged about 15 years old and prosecuting his studies in Standard-X in a Public School at Bhubaneswar. The wife-opposite party also alleged that there was a demand of dowry from the side of the husband-petitioner, which had been fulfilled by her father by giving a cash of rupees one lakh, gold and silver ornaments, whose present market value would be Rs.25 lakhs, house-hold furniture, fixtures, kitchen equipments and electrical equipments etc. of Rs 2 lakhs, T.V. and Freeze of Rs.35,000/-, one two-wheeler of Rs.25,000/- (approximately), an UTI Bond of Rs. 50,000/- and a plot of land at mouza Jagamara, Bhubaneswar. It is further alleged by the wife-opposite party that despite receipt of the aforesaid dowry articles, the husband-petitioner continued to torture the wife-opposite party physically and mentally and asked her for more money from her father. The wife-opposite party remained silent because her mother was struggling with death because of last stage of cancer, who ultimately passed away in 1994. 7. The wife-opposite party was under the impression that the husband-petitioner will change after the son was born, but he continued the misbehavior with the wife-opposite party at the instigation of his sister. The wife-opposite party remained silent because her mother was struggling with death because of last stage of cancer, who ultimately passed away in 1994. 7. The wife-opposite party was under the impression that the husband-petitioner will change after the son was born, but he continued the misbehavior with the wife-opposite party at the instigation of his sister. The husband-petitioner came to know that both the husband-petitioner and his sister are planning to take away the plot of land given by the father of the opposite party-wife, which proved correct when the husband-petitioner forced her to transfer the said land in his favour. On 21.1.2009, when the wife-opposite party refused to do so, the husband-petitioner physically assaulted her causing injuries on her ears. Therefore, the wife-opposite party lodged a report before the Paralakhemundi Police Station, but the IIC of the said Police Station refused to receive such information. Thereafter, she reported the matter before the learned S.D.J.M., Paralakhemundi on the same day. On coming to know that the wife-opposite party had been to the Police Station, the husband-petitioner in an angry mood threw both the wife-opposite party and the son to the street without giving them any food. For maintenance of the son, when the wife-opposite party claimed, then same was not fulfilled by the husband petitioner. Therefore, she was constrained to file the aforesaid application for maintenance of Rs.10,000/- each per month for their maintenance. 8. On formation of the Family Court at Bhubaneswar, Civil Suit No.708 of 2010 was transferred to the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar, which was renumbered as C.P. No.322 of 2010. 9. The wife-opposite party filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act claiming interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month. In the said proceeding, the husband-petitioner questioned the conduct of the wife-opposite party and the legitimacy of the son. It is stated that the wife-opposite party has been getting Rs.10,000/- as a Mathematics Teacher from Prabhuji English Medium School and she has a homestead land at Bhubaneswar, the market value would be more than one crore in which she can maintain herself. The husband-petitioner denied that he is receiving salary of Rs.45,000/- as his take home after all deductions including income tax. Apart from that he is also spending Rs.15,000/- approximately towards medical care of his old parents and Rs.10,000/- for his treatment. 10. The husband-petitioner denied that he is receiving salary of Rs.45,000/- as his take home after all deductions including income tax. Apart from that he is also spending Rs.15,000/- approximately towards medical care of his old parents and Rs.10,000/- for his treatment. 10. In order to substantiate the contentions, affidavits have also been filed, but no document has been filed to establish the claims. Learned Judge, Family Court after considering the materials available on record, allowed I.A. No.305 of 2010 granting interim maintenance of Rs.12,000/- per month i.e. Rs.7,000/- for the wife-opposite party and Rs.5,000/- for her son and the arrear amount was directed to be paid from the date of application, i.e. from 26.4.2010 within a period of two months and current interim maintenance within 10th of each succeeding month. 11. C.P. No.589 of 2010 filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the learned Judge, Family Court, Berhampur by the husband-petitioner has been dismissed ex parte. In the said order, the learned Judge, Family Court has observed that the petitioner is really responsible for the break down of the marriage and he cannot now complain of desertion of his wife since he has not made out a case of dissolution of marriage with the wife-opposite party in terms of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act or even annulment of marriage in terms of Section 11 of the said Act. 12. While issuing notice in the writ petition, this Court by order dated 7.7.2011 passed in Misc. Case No.4118 of 2011 directed the husband-petitioner to pay Rs.10,000/- to the wife and' the son per month instead of Rs. 12,000/- as directed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar in I.A. No.305 of 2010. It is stated that the said order passed by this Court has been complied with by the husband-petitioner by paying the monthly maintenance. 13. During pendency of the writ petition, efforts were made for reconciliation and reunion of the family. In compliance to the order passed by this Court, the husband-petitioner and the wife-opposite party appeared before this Court, but the efforts made by this Court could not become successful as the parties did not agree for reunion. 14. 13. During pendency of the writ petition, efforts were made for reconciliation and reunion of the family. In compliance to the order passed by this Court, the husband-petitioner and the wife-opposite party appeared before this Court, but the efforts made by this Court could not become successful as the parties did not agree for reunion. 14. In view of such position, the following questions fall for consideration in the present case: (i) Whether the wife-opposite party and her son are entitled to get interim maintenance pending finalization of C.P. No.322 of 2010 pending before the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar? (ii) Whether the ex parte order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Berhampur in C.P. No.589 of 2010 can be set aside or not? 15. On the materials available on record, it is clear that the husband-petitioner is a Judicial Officer and discharging his duties being appointed by the Government, whereas the wife-opposite party is continuing as a Mathematics Teacher in Prabhuji English Medium School, Bhubaneswar, which is a private school. Both the husband-petitioner and the wife-opposite party are quite educated and both appear to be matured, independent and fully committed. Therefore, it cannot be construed that it is a hasty decision on the part of the wife-opposite party not to have reunion with the husband-petitioner. 16. Solemnization of marriage between the husband-petitioner and the opposite party is admitted. The status of husband and wife for the' purpose of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act has been achieved by the spouses by such solemnization. The mere fact that the said relationship is sought to be annulled by initiation of the proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act cannot justify a contention that the wife-opposite party is not entitled to get interim maintenance and there is no dispute that the opposite party is the wife of the husband petitioner. Therefore, the provisions contained in Section 24 can apply. Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage reads thus: "24. Therefore, the provisions contained in Section 24 can apply. Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage reads thus: "24. Maintenance pendent lite and expenses of proceedings.- Where in any proceedings under this Act, it appears to the Court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife or the husband, order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding, and monthly, during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioner's own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the Court to be reasonable: Provided that the application for the payment of the expenses of the proceeding and such monthly sum during the proceeding shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of service of notice on the wife or the husband, as the case may be." Considering Section 24 of the Act, as stated above, the apex Court in Neeta Rakesh Jain v. Rakesh Jeetmal Jain, (2010) 12 SCC 242 has observed thus: "9. Section 24 thus provides that in any proceeding under the Act, the spouse who has no independent income sufficient for her or his support may apply to the Court to direct the respondent to pay the monthly maintenance as the Court may think reasonable, regard being had to the petitioner's own income and the income of the respondent. The very language in which the section is couched indicates that wide discretion has been conferred on the Court in the matter of an order for interim maintenance, Although the discretion conferred on the Court is wide, the section provides the guidelines inasmuch as while fixing the interim maintenance the Court has to give due regard to the income of the respondent and the petitioner's own choice. 10. In other words, in the matter of making an order for interim maintenance, the discretion of the Court must be guided by the criterion provided in the section, namely, the means of the parties and also after taking into account incidental and other relevant factors like social status; the background from which both the parties come from and the economical dependence of the petitioner. Since an order for interim maintenance by its very nature is temporary, a detailed and elaborate exercise by the Court may not be necessary, but, at the same time, the Court has got to take all the relevant factors into account and arrive at a proper amount having regard to the factors which are mentioned in the statute." 17. In T.P. Sudesh Babu v. Sherly P., reported in AIR 2010 Kerala 37, it is specifically held that Section 24 applies when any proceeding under the Act is pending and no exception can be carved out for proceedings under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act. In Kamlesh Kumari v. Aman Kishore, AIR 2012 HP 33 , it is held as follows: "8. Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, provides for maintenance pendente lite and, litigation expenses. On any petition filed under the Hindu Marriage Act, the Court has power to make such interim order as it thinks just. Though, the temporary alimony is not regarded as a matter of right, but is a matter of discretion of the Court. Such discretion however, is not arbitrary, but judicial in character controlled by the more or less well established principles of law." In Rita Dutta and another v. Suvendum Dutta, AIR 2006 SC 189 = (2005) 6 SCC 619 in exercise of the power conferred under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the apex Court has granted interim maintenance to the wife as well as to the minor son." 18. Being husband, the petitioner made such allegations which affect the self dignity and chastity of the wife-opposite party and more so, the husband-petitioner applied for DNA test for the parentage of the son, which has given immense shock to her. It is made clear that where marriage is beyond repair on account of the bitterness created by the acts of either of spouses or both, the Court is to look into the circumstances amongst others necessitating severance of marital tie. If it fails, the marriage is dead for all purposes and cannot be revived even by Court's verdict as it involves human sentiments and emotions and if they have dried up, there is hardly any chance of their springing back to life on account of artificial reunion created by the Court decree. If it fails, the marriage is dead for all purposes and cannot be revived even by Court's verdict as it involves human sentiments and emotions and if they have dried up, there is hardly any chance of their springing back to life on account of artificial reunion created by the Court decree. When efforts made by this Court with regard to reunion and settlement of the parties have failed, this Court has no other way out to proceed with the matter to give it a logical conclusion. 19. Accordingly, the order dated 10.2.2011 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar with regard to grant of interim maintenance is modified in terms of the interim order passed by this Court directing the husband-petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- till the matter is disposed of by giving opportunity to the parties. 20. So far as the ex parte order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Berhampur in C.P. No.589 of 2010 is concerned, the same is hereby set aside directing both the parties to appear before the said Court in the third week of September, 2013. On their appearance, learned Judge, Family Court, Berhampur will fix up a date of hearing by giving opportunity to the wife-opposite party to adduce evidence to establish her case. 21. With the aforesaid observation and direction, both the writ petition as well as MATA are disposed of. S. PANDA, J. I agree. Ordered accordingly.