( 1 ) CHALLENGE has been made by petitioner-husband to the order of the Civil Judge (S. D.), Gandhinagar, dated 18th June 1999 in Hindu Marriage Petition No. 30 of 1998 under which, by way of pendete-lite, alimony of Rs. 1,000/= and Rs. 2000/= as costs of expenses of litigation were granted to the respondent-wife. Translation of this order reads as under:it is hereby ordered that the opponent shall pay to the applicant Rs. 1,000/= (Rupees One Thousand Only) every month till the final disposal of the case. IT is further ordered that the applicant be paid Rs. 2,000/= by way of expenses of advocate.

( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this order has been passed by the learned trial court without hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner. It has next been contended that the amount of Rs. 1,000/= awarded towards maintenance to the wife is towards higher side. Lastly it is contended that the petitioner is ready even today to keep the wife with him but she is not ready and willing to stay with the petitioner. Therefore, she is not entitled to claim any maintenance from the petitioner.

( 3 ) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent supported this order.

( 4 ) HAVING given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the first grievance of the petitioner that the order has been passed without hearing is wholly devoid of any substance. The blame lies with his counsel. Notice of this application was given to the petitioner but if the counsel does not remain present when the case is called I fail to see how far the petitioner is justified to make such a complaint before this court. It is the counsel who is responsible and not the court. It is not the case where the court has not given opportunity of hearing to the petitioner but it is a case where this opportunity was not availed of by petitioner. This order otherwise also is difficult to appreciate. The wife in a litigation under Hindu Marriage Act cannot be taken to be a chattel. Equally it is also not a matter of grant of some charity to the wife by the courts by way of interim maintenance. Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act confers statutory right upon the spouse to apply for interim maintenance and this claim of the petitioner has to be decided on its own merits rather than as if what the court is granting some charity to him or her, that is what precisely it has been done by the learned trial court in this case. If the respondent has not put appearance, still the court has to decide what amount is to be awarded to the wife keeping in view the income of the husband towards interim maintenance. The learned trial court has not given any reason whatsoever why it has felt satisfied and contended to award only Rs. 1,000/= as interim maintenance to the wife where the income of the husband was stated to be Rs. 22,000/= p. m. Normal rule is of grant of 1/3rd of the net income of the husband as interim maintenance to the wife. This aspect has not been looked into and considered. The learned trial court has not taken care of and kept in mind what are the points to be considered to arrive at a reasonable amount of interim maintenance to be granted to the wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is to be stated for guidance of the court subordinate that first the court has to consider whether the wife has any sufficient means to maintain herself and then it has to consider what is the amount to be taken as net income of the husband in accordance with law for fixation of the amount of interim maintenance of the wife and lastly the court has to reach to a sum which has to be awarded as interim maintenance per month to the wife.

( 5 ) SO far as it relates to the claim of wife for litigation expenses, I am constrained to observe that the learned courts subordinate are not correct in their approach. Aims and objects of the Act, 1987 are as follows:"an Act to constitute legal services a