JUDGMENT & ORDER (Oral) Heard Mr. S. Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The petitioner and the respondent in terms of the order of this court dated 28.11.2016 has appeared in person. Right in this point of time they are not ready to live together. However, this court has formed an impression that if the proper counseling is made, the matrimonial relation of the petitioner and the respondent may be restituted. 3. As it stated by Mr. S. Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the respondent instituted a case for restitution of the conjugal rights and that petition has been allowed and the decree for restitution of the conjugal rights was issued, against which the present petitioner has filed an appeal and that appeal is pending in this court. 4. This order as is being passed by this court, would be of interim in nature by granting liberty to the petitioner to move this court by filing an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in the matrimonial appeal that is stated to be pending. For the decree of restitution of conjugal rights, as passed the Family Court, Udaipur, the prayer for maintenance has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 23.07.2015 delivered in Cr.Misc./FC/UDP/86/2015. The said order does not contain any reason whatsoever except making a reference to the decree of conjugal rights. It is so cryptic that the order itself has become unintelligible. Such order should not be passed the court of law. Whenever the final order be passed terminating the proceeding, that order shall be informed reasons. Since there is no reason this court has failed to understand what was the basis of such refusal. Whether simply for existence of decree of restitution of conjugal rights, a petition for maintenance allowance can be refused as in the considered view of this court while applying the restrictions as provided under Section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C. the basis of such refusal shall be juxtaposed with the object of enacting Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. i.e to combat of the married woman who is leaving apart from his husband’s vagrancy and the husband has refused to maintain her. 5. 5. Be that as it may, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has agreed that the petitioner would make a substantive application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in the said appellate proceeding. This order, therefore, shall not stand in the way of filing such application in the appellate proceeding. However, for the intervening period the petitioner shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.2,000/per month from the respondent from 01.12.2016. That amount shall be payable in the month of January, 2017 and shall be paid within 7th day of every English calendar month. The said amount shall be sent to the petitioner by the money order or if the petitioner furnishes her bank details, the respondent shall be at liberty to transfer the said amount in her account. If the money is sent by money order, the charge of money order shall be borne by the respondent. Mr. Ghosh, learned counsel has confirmed that the address of the petitioner is known to the respondent. 6. Having observed thus, this petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.