( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the order passed by the Additional subordinate Judge, Tenali in I. A. No. 2482/1979 in O. P. No. 159/1979.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is the husband of the respondent herein. He filed 0. P. No. 159/79 for the annulment of marriage under Section 12 (d) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Then the respondent filed I. A. No. 2482/79 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the act ) seeking for the interim maintenance and legal expenses pendente lite on the ground that she has no independent income sufficient to maintain her or to meet the necessary expenses of the proceedings in the above mentioned O. P. This I. A. was resisted by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is also indigent person and he has no independent source of income. The lower Court merely took into consideration the circumstances that the respondent has no independent income and her parents also have no sufficient means to maintain her, that she is now pregnant and she requires medical aid, that it is the duty of the husband to maintain the respondent and children till the petition is decided, that the petitioner is an able bodied man and an educated man who can earn something to eke out his livelihood and maintain his wife and children, that the respondent needs certain amounts to meet her legal expenses including the fees to her advocate and to bring the witnesses to be examined on her side and passed orders directing the petitioner to provide interim maintenance at the rate of rs. 50/- per month from the date 7-9-1979 on which day the respondent made appearance and also another sum of Rs. 150/- towards her legal expenses.

( 3 ) AGGRIEVED with the said order, the present revisionpetition is filed by the husband.

( 4 ) THOUGH notice was served on the respondent, she did not contest the petition either in person or through counsel. The matter is, therefore, heard ex parte.

( 5 ) SRI Durgaprasad Rao contends that the benefit of Section 24 can be invoked if one of the spouses happened to be affluent. But if both husband and wife happened to be indigent persons, the provisions of Section 24 of the Act are of no avail to the respondent as against the petitioner. He, therefore, contends that the lower Court did not advert to this important aspect viz. , the pecuniary circumstances of the petitioner who is not able to maintain himself as he is not having any independent source of income and hence the impugned order is vitiated with jurisdictional error.

( 6 ) IT is not in dispute that the respondent is the wife of the petitioner and the petitioner has filed O. P. for the annulment of the marriage. It is also not in dispute that the respondent is pregnant and she has no independent means to maintain herself or to have medical aid during the period of pregnancy and maternity and she has also no means to defend herself in the proceedings in the O. P. by engaging an advocate and by examining the necessary witnesses in support of her defence. There is no evidence as to the financial position of the petitioner. It is now well settled that the object of Section 24 of the Act is to provide the wife or the husband, as the case may be, for the maintainance and also for legal expenses pendentelite in case 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 legal proceedings. If the wife is affluent and files an application for restitution of conjugal rights or for dissolution of the marriage against the husband who is indigent, the husband in such a case is entitled to file, under Section 24, for legal expenses so as to enable him to conduct the proceedings in the said petition. Similarly if the husband happens to be affluent and files a petition for restitution of conjugal rights or for dissolution of the marriage and if the wife is indigent having no independent means to maintain herself and to conduct the proce