The court emphasized the purpose of S.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to provide financial assistance to the indigent spouse and held that the court has the power to dispose of the petition under S.24 on merits even after the disposal of the main proceedings.

1. This is a revision by the husband from an order made by the District Judge in proceedings by the wife for ancillary relief under S.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, the Act). There is no dispute between the parties on certain essential facts of this case.

2. The husband and wife were married on 13th November, 1969. The couple had one child. There was a breakdown of marriage. Husband complained desertion by the wife. He filed an application for dissolution of the marriage, O. P. No. 10 of 1980. It was filed on 26-3-1980. Notice on the application was issued on 9-4-1980. Pending the main petition, O. P. 10/80, the wife filed an application I. A. 3486/80 on 24-11-1980 for the relief of interim alimony and for court's direction to the husband to pay a lump sum amount to the wife to meet the expenses of the litigation. This application was disposed of only on 31-1-1981. Before the disposal of this application, the main petition O. P. 10/80- was dismissed on 15-12-1980.

The husband did not appear before the court. The court was not inclined to postpone the case for good reason and in that circumstance, the O. P. was dismissed for non-prosecution.

3. The District Court considered the interim application IA. 3486/80 and passed the impugned order directing the husband to pay an amount of Rs.750/- per month from the date of notice, viz. 9-4-1980 till the disposal of the main petition, viz. 15-12-1980. The order further directed the husband to make a lump sum payment of an amount of Rs. 1,500/- towards litigation expenses. The husband feels aggrieved. He challenges the order in this revision.

4. The learned counsel for the husband, raised before me certain points and argued those points very ably. The submission of the counsel is simple but forceful. He says that the trial court had no jurisdiction to pass the order on I. A. 3486/80 directing the husband to pay interim alimony, and litigation expenses after the disposal of the main proceedings for divorce. To support this argument, the counsel wanted me to examine the integrants of S.24 of the Act. He says that I should accept the view taken in a similar situation by the Delhi High Court in the decision reported in Chitra Lekha v. Ranjit Rai (AIR 1977 Delhi 176). Counsel also submits that the trial court has plainly gone wrong in the exercise of its discretion in determining the quantum of interim alimony and the lump sum for litigation expenses.

5. The learned counsel for the wife submits that there is no rational justification for this court to say that interim alimony cannot be given on the happening of an event for which the wife is in no way responsible, namely, the inordinate postponement of the disposal of her interlocutory application. Counsel wants me to take note of the plain fact that usually the disposal of an application for interim relief is delayed for several reasons. Some are certainly reasons beyond the control of the applicant. Some of them are plainly attributable to the respondent (the husband in this case) and some on account of the normal and inevitable exigencies of the court. The counsel submits that the whole purpose and scheme of the enactment should be examined carefully, particularly the benign devoir that informs S.24 of the Act. The counsel further submits that this court should not and could not review the exercise of the discretion of the trial court in regard to the quantum of interim alimony and the lump sum amount fixed for litigation expenses.

6. Two questions arise for decision on this revision: the ambit of S.24 of the Act and the extent of the powers of this court to review the exercise of the discretion of the trial court.

7. At the proscenium I should call attention to know the nature of that institution the marriage and how Court should consider it. Its nature, character and incidents vary in different countries, but what are its essential elements and invariable features? Can we conceive some pervading identity and universa