1. The requirements of justice give an occasion for the development of new dimension of justice by evolving juristic principles for doing complete justice according to the current needs of the Society. The quest for justice in the process of administration of justice occasions the evolution of new dimensions of the justice. J.S. Verma, J., in his Article “New Dimensions of Justice”, (1997) 3 SCC J-3 observed that:-

“...Justice is the ideal to be achieved by Law. Justice is the goal of law. Law is a set of general rules applied in the administration of justice. Justice is in a cause on application of law to a particular case. Jurisprudence is the philosophy of law. Jurisprudence and Law have ultimately to be tested on the anvil of administration of justice. ‘Law as it is’, may fall short of 'Law as it ought to be' for doing complete justice in a cause. The gap between the two may be described as the field covered by Morality. There is no doubt that the development of the law is influenced by morals. The infusion of morality for reshaping the law is influenced by the principles of Equity and Natural Justice, as effective agencies of growth. The ideal State is when the rules of law satisfy the requirements of justice and the gap between the two is bridged. It is this attempt to bridge the gap which occasions the development of New Jurisprudence.

The existence of some gap between law and justice is recognized by the existing law itself. This is the reason for the recognition of inherent powers of the court by express provision made in the Code of Civil Procedure and the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Constitution of India by Article 142 expressly confers on the Supreme Court plenary powers for doing complete justice in any cause or matter before it. Such power in the court of last resort is recognition of the principle that in the justice delivery system, at the end point attempt must be made to do complete justice in every cause, if that result cannot be achieved by provisions of the enacted law. These powers are in addition to the discretionary powers of courts in certain areas where rigidity is considered inappropriate, e.g., equitable reliefs and Article 226 of the Constitution. ...”

Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

2. Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act empowers the Court to award maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses to a party who has no independent income sufficient for his/her support in proceedings pending under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, having regard to the income of the parties. The Proviso to Section 24 provides that application under Section 24 shall be disposed of within 60 days of the date of service of notice on the opposite party.

3. Maintenance is not merely a legal right. It is part and parcel of basic human right. For weaker sections, it is a problem in the sense that their very survival rest on the maintenance. The object behind the provision is two-fold: firstly, to prevent vagrancy resulting from stained relation between the husband and wife, and secondly, to ensure that the indigent litigating spouse is not handicapped in defending or prosecuting the case due to want of money. On the breakdown of the marriage, it often so happens that the husband pays nothing for the support of his wife and children and the wife has to fall back upon her parents and relatives to fend her immediate needs. Reasonableness too demands extension of such a relief in favour of a needy spouse. Had not the parties drifted away from one another, the spouse from whom support is sought would have in any case supported the other spouse entailing financial burden. Hence, it is but natural to make the husband bear the cost of maintaining his wife pending disposal of any dispute until some permanent relief is provided to her.

4. In Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena & Ors, AIR 2014 SC 2875 the Supreme Court held that any d