The amount of maintenance pendente lite and cost of litigation awarded to a wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act should be reasonable and proportionate to the husband's income and the wife's needs, considering their financial status and social station.

( 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 Court would be of no consequence.

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel has next urged that under S. 24, Hindu Marriage Act, a spouse is entitled to maintenance pendente lite only if she or he "has no independent income sufficient for her or his support". The learned Counsel has pointed out that the wife-petitioner in this case has admittedly a regular gross monthly income of more than Rs. 1,900/- per month and a net monthly income of not less than Rs. 1,200/- per month as an Upper Division Clerk and the learned Counsel has accordingly contended that she has sufficient independent income for her support and, therefore, is not entitled to any maintenance under S. 24, Hindu Marriage Act.

( 4 ) CLASS-LESS society being still a very far cry and the society we live in being class-ridden to the extreme, the question as to what income is sufficient for the support of a wife, would, whether one likes it or not, has to be determined with reference to the class she and her husband belong to. And, therefore, what may be considered to be sufficient for the support of the wife of a petty clerk would not be regarded to be sufficient for the support of the wife of a high-salaried big officer. "to support" lexically means to supply withnecessariesand as S. 68, Contract Act, would show necessaries in respect of a person must be "suited to his condition in life". And as was held by a Division Bench of this Court in construing that Section in Jagon Ram v. Mahadeo Prosad (1909) ILR 36 Cal 768 at p. 777, necessaries would include everything necessary to maintain a person in the state, station or decree of life in which he is and being thus a relative expression must be determined with reference to those factors. It has been held by an another Division Bench of this Court in Surendra Nath v. Puspa, (1978) 2 Cal LJ 602 at p. 604, that the quantum of maintenance pendente lite under S. 24, Hindu Marriage Act, would depend on various factors "such as, the ability of the husband, the needs of wife, the social status, age, education and other requirements". It may also be noted that under S. 23 (2), Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, in determining the amount of maintenance to be awarded to a wife, the first thing the Court would have to regard to is "the position and the status of the parties". We are of the view that if the amount of maintenance awardable to the wife is to depend on the status and station of the husband, the amount which can be regarded to besufficient for her supportmust also depend on and vary with the status and station of the husband. We would accordingly hold that the expression "income sufficient for her support" in S. 24 of the Act would not mean only such amount as would be sufficient for the wife to eke out her existence at the subsistence level, but w