( 1 ) THE wife-appellant, who has appealed against a decree of divorce passed against her, has filed this application for maintenance pendente lite and cost of litigation under S. 24, Hindu Marriage Act, as well as for an order of temporary injunction restraining the husband-respondent from marrying again during the pendency of the appeal. The petitioner should have filed two separate applications for these two reliefs; but that being a matter of mere form and procedure, if she can make out her case for both the reliefs, the same or any of them should not be denied to her on the ground that she has failed to file two separate sets of paper.

( 2 ) IN opposing the application so far it relates to payment of maintenance pendente lite and cost of litigation, the learned Counsel for the husband-respondent has firstly contended that the wife-appellant did not file any such application in the trial Court and that is a fact which must be taken into consideration against her claim in this application. We are, however, of opinion that if she is otherwise entitled to maintenance under S. 24, Hindu Marriage Act, the fact that she made no such application in the trial