( 1 ) THIS revision is of the order dated 1-2-1988 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi, whereby she, on an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for shore the Act ) of the wife. allowed her maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 600. 00 per month, but at the same time declining her any expenses of the proceedings. The petitioner is the husband before me.

( 2 ) THE parties were married on 12-10-1986. They lived together for about three months. Then the wife filed a petition under Section 12 of the Act seeking annulment of the marriage on the ground that the marriage had not been consummated owing to impotence of the husband. In these proceedings, she filed an application on 10-3-1987 under Section 24 of the Act claiming both maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses but, as noted above, her application was allowed to the extent that she was awarded maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 600. 00 per month from the date of the application but the court below held that she was not entitled to any litigation expenses she being herself an earning hand.

( 3 ) THE husband is working as a junior accountant (not junior engineer as recorded in the impugned order) and the wife is working as a lower division clerk. Respective incomes of the husband and wife for the month of July 1987 as per their pay certificates are as follows :

( 3 ) THE wife has contended that the husband is an artist and holds exhibitions and earns Rs. 2000. 00 per month from the sale of the paintings. This has been denied by the husband who said painting was merely his hobby and rather he spent Rs. 200. 00 every month on buying colours, brushes, canvas, etc. The trial court, however, assessed the income of the husband from the sale of paintings at Rs. 200. 00 per month as the court was of the view that the husband must be having some income by holding exhibitions of his paintings.

( 4 ) THE husband has challenged the impugned order on the grounds that there was no finding by the trial court that the income of the wife was not sufficient for her support and the finding that the husband was earning Rs. 200. 00 p. m. from the sale of his paintings was not based on any evidence when there was no evidence to base such a finding. It was also contended that in fixing the maintenance pendente lite the court did not have regard to the income of the wife. In support of his submissions, Mr. S. M. Sarin, learned counsel for the husband, referred to : a Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court in Ashit Mukherjee v. Smt. Susmita Mukherjee, AIR 1987 Cal. 153 ; L. R. Rajendran\. Gaja1akshmi, AIR 1985 Mad. 195 ; Rajambal v. Murugappan, AIR 1985 Mad. 284 ; Preeti v. Ravind Kumar Sharma, AIR 1979 Alld. 29 and Baboolal v. Prem Lata, AIR 1974 Raj. 93.

( 5 ) MR. S. K. Puri, learned counsel for the wife, justified the impugned order and stated that the learned trial court did take into account the income of the wife, but considering the fact that the wife required residence she was awarded maintenance pendente lite over and above her income which was not sufficient for her support. Grievance of Mr. Puri was that the trial court acted illegally in not granting any expenses for the proceedings to the wife . He in support referred to a decision of this court in Dev Dutt Singh v. Rajni Gandhi, AIR 1984 Delhi 320, I may note that in Deo Dull Singh case this court did not follow the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Preeti v. Ravind. Kumar Sharma (supra), and held that the use of the word "support" in Section 24 of the Act was of wide import. This court observed that "support" had to be according to the standard of the parties, and maintenance had to be fixed according to the standing of the parties, their wealth and the environment to which they in their married state had been accustomed. The court further observed as under: "in the light of all the circumstances of the particular case the Court has to arrive at a fig