The court has inherent power to dismiss a suit for non-compliance with an order for maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, but this power should be exercised with restraint and only after considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

S. C. MOHAPATRA, J.

( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision by the husband arises out of an order dismissing a matrimonial proceeding for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for non-compliance of the direction to the husband to pay maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses to the wife within the time stipulated.

( 2 ) ON 16-7-1983, the learned Subordinate Judge passed an order directing the husband for payment of monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs. 150/- and expenses of the proceeding of Rs. 300/- to the opposite party who is his wife. No time was stipulated in the order for the payment of the amounts. Shortly thereafter, on 10-8-1983, an application was filed on behalf of the wife that the suit should be dismissed for non-compliance of the order. Opportunity was given to the husband to file objection to such a petition. On 27-10-1983, the husband filed the objection stating therein that he has no capacity to pay the amount ordered. The application with the objection was considered on 8-3-1984 and order was passed directing payment of the entire arrears by 9-4-1984. The order dt. 8-3-1984 reads as follows :-"advocate for plaintiff files petition for time for hearing of petition filed by defendant on the ground that the petitioner-plaintiff is suffering. Advocate for defendant files hazira. Heard. The plaintiff in his counter has stated that he has no capacity to pay and as such his default is not intentional. The plaintiff was ordered to pay alimony pendente lite to his wife, the defendant at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month from the date of the suit and a sum of Rs. 300/- towards her costs. Cost of litigation as per the order dt. 16-7-1983 passed in M. J. C. 371/75. Till now the plaintiff has paid nothing to the defendant. He is directed to pay the arrear alimony and legal expenses to the defendant as per the final order passed in M. J. C. 371/75 by 9-4-84 failing which he would be non-suited for contumacious refusal to pay alimony pendente lite. " sd/- 8-3-84. "the amount not having been paid by the date fixed, the suit was dismissed as per the previous order dt. 8-3-1984. The impugned order reads as follows :"9-4-84 : Parties file hazira. The plaintiff has not paid the arrear alimony to the defendant in spite of directions. Heard. The suit is dismissed for contumacious refusal of the plaintiff to pay the alimony pendente lite as per the principle laid down in Mahalingam Pillai v. Ansavalli reported in (1956) 2 Mad LJ 289. No costs. Sd/ -. . . . . . . . . . . . "

( 3 ) MR. U. C. Panda, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of dismissal of the suit amounts to exercise of jurisdiction with material irregularity on the following grounds :- (I) Maintenance has been granted in a partition suit to the opposite party and her son and therefore, the order under S. 24 of the Act is unjustified since the ingredients thereof have not been considered by the Court. (II) There being no direction in the order under S. 24 of the Act for consequences in default to pay the amount within a stipulated time and no time having been stipulated, a subsequent order to that effect is illegal. (III) Alternative mode of recovery of the sum by execution of the order being available, the dismissal of the suit for non-payment is unjustified. (IV) The grant of pendente lite maintenance and litigation expenses being a provision of a Special Statute in absence of specific provision for dismissal of the suit for non-compliance of the order, the suit could not have been dismissed in exercise of inherent power. (V) The order is vitiated in the absence of any material or reason in support of the contumacious conduct when the petitioner has asserted that having no means to pay the default is not intentional. Mrs. A. K. Padhi, the learned counsel for the opposite party challenged each of the grounds raised by Mr. Panda and submitted that the benevolent provision in S. 24 of the Act should be consi