The main legal point established is that maintenance under S.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 should be paid from the date of service of summons of the main petition for restitution of conjugal rights on the spouse, and the court has the discretion to determine a fair and reasonable amount for arrears of maintenance based on the facts and circumstances of the case.

1. The respondent in MFA. No. 652 of 1983 is the petitioner herein. The sole appellant in MFA. No. 652/83, the respondent in this petition, is the petitioner's husband. This petition is filed by the wife, petitioner, under S.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which is to the following effect:

"24. Maintenance pendente hite and expenses of proceedings: Where in any proceeding under this Act it appears to the court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceedings, it may, on the application of the wife or the husband, order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of proceeding, and monthly during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioner's own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the court to be reasonable."

The respondent married the petitioner on 20-10-1974 There are two male children in the wed-lock. The parties are Hindus The petitioner is the second wife of the respondent. The respondent herein (husband) filed OP. No. 51 of 1980 under S.9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 praying for restitution of conjugal rights. The court below found that the respondent treated the petitioner cruelly and as such the petitioner had reasonable excuse to withdraw from the society of her husband. The OP. filed by the respondent-husband was dismissed. He has filed MFA. No 652 of 1983 in this court from the aforesaid decision of the court below.

2. Pending the appeal, CMP. No. 3906 of 1984 was filed by the petitioner (wife) under S.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 praying to direct the respondent (husband) to deposit in Court for payment to the petitioner reasonable sum towards maintenance and expenses of the proceedings and to pass appropriate orders. This petition was filed on 3rd February, 1984. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition dated 29th January, 1984 the petitioner has stated that she has no independent income sufficient for her support and that she requires atleast Rs. 200/- per month for maintenance, and that such reasonable sum towards maintenance may be granted, inclusive of the period during which the OP. was pending and also some reasonable amount towards expenses in these proceedings. By order dated 17-2-1984, this court ordered that the respondent should pay a sum of Rs. 200/- per mensem towards maintenance besides a sum of Rs. 500/- towards expenses for the proceedings, within one month. It was also held, that the said direction shall be without prejudice to the right of the petitioner, to claim the arrears of maintenance, eversince the OP. was filed in the lower court. CMP. No. 5939 of 1984 has been filed since then, claiming that the respondent may be directed to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs. 10,100/- or such reasonable amount as this court may deem proper, towards arrears of maintenance and the expenses of the proceedings in the court below. The arrears are claimed from 3-3-1980 till 17-2-1984, the date on which orders were passed in CMP. No. 3909 of 1984, at the rate of Rs. 200/- per mensem, which will be about Rs. 9,600/- and the expenses for contesting the proceedings in the court below, amounting to Rs. 500/- (Total Rs. 10,100/-). The respondent (husband) has filed a counter-affidavit dated 19th March, 1984 The maintainability of such petition as also quantum asked for are disputed. The petitioner has filed a reply-affidavit dated 25th March, 1984.

3. At this stage of the proceedings, when the appeal itself is pending, the question as to whether and if so what amount can be granted to the petitioner by way of arrears of maintenance, etc., can be adjudicated only in a summary way. Courts have expressed divergent views regarding the date from which the court can grant maintenance in exercise of the powers vested under S.24 of the Act. Three different views have been expressed. (1) The maintenance can be granted from the date of the origi