1. The petitioner is the husband of the respondent (The parties are hereinafter referred to as husband and wife.) The wife has filed petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) against the husband for the relief of divorce on certain allegations. The same is numbered as M.C. No. 31/2010. Statement of objections are filed by the husband to the main matter. The husband had also filed M.C. No. 1256/2010 praying for divorce. Both petitions are pending consideration.

2. An application came to be filed by the wife under Section 25 of the Act, praying for permanent alimony to an extent of Rs. 25 lakhs and she has also sought for litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 25,000/-. The statement of objections are filed by the husband to the application filed under Section 25 of the Act on 25.9.2010 opposing the said application. The Family Court on considering the material on record, granted the interim maintenance of Rs. 5,500/- per month to the wife from the date of filing the application. The said order is called in question in this writ petition.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the husband submits that no application is filed by the wife praying for interim maintenance and therefore, the Court below is not justified in granting the interim maintenance in favour of wife. It is no doubt true that the wife has not filed an application praying for interim maintenance. However, the Court below having heard both the learned advocates on the question of granting interim maintenance, awarded Rs. 5,500/- per month to the wife.

4. Section 24 of the Act deals with grant of maintenance pendente lite. Plain meaning of Section 24 of the Act prima facie supports the arguments of the learned counsel for the husband that the maintenance pendente lite may be granted in favour of the wife on the application filed by the wife and not otherwise.

But, the legality of the impugned order will have to be tested by keeping in mind the object with which Section 24 of the Act is enacted. There cannot be any dispute that the object of a proceeding for maintenance is to prevent vagrancy by compelling the husband or the father to support his wife or child unable to support herself or itself. The provision is not in the nature of penal provision, but, is only intended for the enforcement of a duty, a default in which may lead to vagrancy. The real object is to provide food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife and children. The provision enables the Court to see that the indigent spouse is put in a financial condition in which the party concerned may produce proper matrimonial evidence in the case. The Court has to see that the party is not handicapped in or prevented from bringing all the relevant facts before the Court for decision of the case because of his or her poverty. The Court is expected to conduct the proceedings equitably between the parties and can take all steps consistent with law to achieve its object. In order to obviate against the financial handicap of a party to a litigation, Section 24 is enacted. The said provision is a socio-economic piece of legislation. The wife who is unable to maintain herself and is living separately from her husband during the pendency of matrimonial dispute in the Court has to be given a reasonable sum towards the interim maintenance. Similar is the case with a minor child. It is not only the legal duty, but a pious obligation of the husband and the father, as the case may be, to maintain his wife and child. Keeping this object in mind, the trial Court must passed the impugned order in favour of the wife in order to see that the wife is able to maintain herself and to defend her case.

6. A similar question arose before the Orissa High Court in the case of BULBUL SAMANTARAY SMT. –vs- DHIRENDRA KUMAR SAMANTARY (AIR 2003 ORISSA 154). In the said matter, an application came to be filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act pra