The learned counsel for the petitioner has not appeared since morning. Instead of dismissing the writ petition on account of his absence, I would like to dispose of the same on merits.
2. The petition was admitted mainly on the ground that after the decree dated 19th April, 1975 passed by the Judge, Family Court in favour of respondent No, 1 for payment of prompt dower was satisfied vide an order of the Court, dated 21st May, 1976, whether respondent No. 1 was liable to be maintained thereafter as per order of the learned District Judge dated 10th May, 1976. The learned counsel appearing for respon--dent No. 1 concedes that after the aforesaid decree was satisfied on 21st May, 1976, respondent No. I was not liable to be maintained by the petitioner.
3. There is yet another circumstance which requires consideration. The learned District Judge vide his judgment dated 29May, 1976 held that the marriage between the parties had been dissolved.
It means that the dissolution of marriage became effective from the aforesaid date while the learned District Judge by his order dated 10th May, 1976 held that since the prompt dower had not been paid to respondent No. 1 by the petitioner, therefore, she was within her right to stay away from him and as such liable to be maintained by him.
4. Since the marriage between the parties came to an end on 29May, 1975, therefore, respondent No. 1 was not entitled to any main--tenance thereafter. She has been found otherwise entitled to maintenance with effect from 24th of April, 1972. It means that in the circumstances mentioned above she would be entitled to the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 100 p. m. For the period from 24th of April. 1972 to 29May, 1975. In addition to that, she would also be entitled to maintenance for the period of iddat (three months).th th th
5. As a result of the above, the impugned order passed by the Judge, Family Court is hereby modified accordingly and the writ petition is accepted to that extent alone, without any order as to costs.