Dwarka Prasad Gupta, J.
1. The respondent wife has filed an application for interim maintenance and for expenses of proceedings in the present revision petition. The trial court had fixed an interim maintenance of Rs. 300/- per month. The respondent has put in her appearance in this Court on 7-12-1981 and the revision petition has remained pending for almost 4 1/2 months. The petitioner should, therefore, make payment of interim maintenance for a period of 4 1/2 months @ Rs. 300/- per month i.e. Rs. 1,350/- in all towards interim maintenance during the pendency of the revision petition. The petitioner should also make payment of a sum of Rs. 250/- as expenses to the respondent in respect of the present proceedings in this Court. Thus, the petitioner should make payment of Rs. 1,000/- to the respondent in all, in respect of interim maintenance during the pendency of the revision petition and expenses. The petitioner Rajendra Singh, is allowed one month's time to make payment of the amount of Rs. 1,600/-.
2. The main revision petition was taken up for hearing with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioner filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on 16-3-81 in the court of the District Judge, Sriganganagar. That application was dismissed by the order dated 31-8-1981. The learned District Judge on 5-9-81 proceeded to fix interim maintenance during the pendency of the proceedings at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month.
3. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that no order about interim maintenance could be passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act after the proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act came to an end. Learned Counsel for the respondent has not been able to controvert this submission. Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act makes provision for determination of interim maintenance to be paid monthly by either spouse to the other, who may have no independent income sufficient to meet her or his necessary expenses and expenses of the proceedings, during the pendency of the proceedings. Once the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act was disposed of, no proceeding was pending before the learned District Judge and the order under Section 24 of she Hindu Marriage Act could not have been passed. The interim order passed under Section 24 could be passed in pending proceedings and once the proceedings come to an end, the order under Section 24 can no longer be passed. In this view of the matter, the order passed by the learned District Judge appears to be untenable.
4. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. The order passed by the learned District Judge on 5-9-81 is set aside.