JUDGMENT

Stephen, J. - We show that the Petitioner's present income is Rs. 500 a month and that he has promised to pay us Rs. 100 a month. By sec. 36 of the Divorce Act the Court can order him to pay a fifth of his income to his wife. As however he does not admit our statements, the proper course is for the Court to refer the matter to the Registrar to enquire and report what will be a proper sum for him to pay to his wife by way of alimony pendente lite. Such sum will be payable as from the date of service of the citation upon us nearly two years ago : see Thomas v. Thomas I. L. R. 23 Cal. 913 (1896). Although the parties are subject to sec. 4 of the Indian Succession Act, 1865, the Petitioner must pay in advance or secure his wife's costs of this suit, Allen v. Allen L. R. (1894) Pr. 134, Natall v. Natall I. L. R. 9 Mad. 12 (1885), Mayhew v. Mayhew I. L. R. 19 Bom. 293 (1894).

2. It is true that there are decisions of this Court to a contrary effect, Thomson v. Thomson I. L. R. 14 Cal. 580 (1887), but they should not be preferred to the unauimous decisions of the Courts in England, Bombay and Madras. The Calcutta cases merely follow the decision in Proby v. Proby I. L. R. 5 Cal. 35