A wife is not entitled to maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, if she has an independent income sufficient to meet her needs.

J.R. Chopra, J.-The case comes up for orders on an application filed by the wife-respondent under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) for grant of maintenance pendente lite and expenses of the proceedings already incurred by her and to be incurred by her in future from the husband-appellant.

2. It may be stated here that during the pendency of this matter before the learned District Judge, Bikaner, the wife-respondent did not claim the maintence pendente lite and the expenses of the proceedings, under Section 24 of the Act. However, the learned District Judge passed the decree of divorce in favour of the husband-appellant but that decree of divorce was set aside by a learned single Judge of this Court in S.B. civil Misc. Appeal No. 243 of 1989 (Smt. Nisha vs. Rampal, decided on No vs. 29, 1990). Hence, the husband-appellant has filed this D.B. civil Special Appeal No. 2 of 1991, in which, the wife-respondent has filed this application under Section 24 of the Act.

3. We have heard Mr. R.K. Singhal, the learned Counsel for the applicant (wife-respondent) and Mr. M.C. Bhoot, the learned Counsel appearing for the non-applicant (husband-appellant) on the application under Section 24 of the Act and have carefully gone through the record of the case.

4. Thecase of the wife-respondent is that she has not been paid a single pie as maintenance or expenses, although she had to attend the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Bikaner from village Dhabban in Tehsil Sangaria, where she is employed as a Teacher, with her father and brother. She had to attend this Court also a number of times, when the matter was pending before the learned single Judge and in this way, she had to spend Rs. 1,000/-every time. She has submitted that after the judgment of the learned single Judge, she thought that the husband-appellant may agree to keep her with him as his wife and at that time, her father was also alive and now, she is unable to meet out her expenses of day to day life as well as expenses of the proceedings. She is facing these proceedings for the last about 7 years, as a result of which, she had to spend thousands of rupees. She has further submitted that though she is employed as a teacher in Village Dhabban in Tehsil Sangaria but she is unable to live according to the status of her husband. Her husband is serving in the Bank in the Officer Grade and is getting Rs. 4000/-per month as pay. He has also constructed a house at Bikaner, from which, he is getting rental income of Rs. 2000/-per month. According to the wife-respondent, her monthly income is Rs. 2000/-and if the income of both the spouses is clubbed together, the total income comes to Rs. 8,000/-per month. She has, therefore, submitted that she being the wife of the husband-respondent is entitled to half of the income of both the spouses meaning thereby that she is entitled to Rs. 2,000/-per month from her husband as maintenance.

5. The wife-respondent has further contended that she has already spent a sum of Rs. 10,000/-as litigation expenses and she will have to spend Rs. 5,000/-for prosecuting this appeal and, therefore, she has claimed Rs. 15,000/-towards the expenses of the proceedings. This application under Section 24 of the Act has been supported by the affidavit of the wife-respondent.

6. A reply to this application supported by the affidavit of the husband-appellant has been filed, in which, it has been claimed that the wife-respondent is living separately at her own will. She has not been subjected to any matrimonial cruelty. According to the husband-appellant, the contention of the wife-respondent that she had to spend Rs. 1,000/-on her every visit to Jodhpur is false. The husband-appellant has submitted that the wife-respondent is an earning member and, therefore, she is not entitled to move this application under Section 24 of the Act. She is able to meet out her expenses because she is earning Rs. 2300/-per month as a Teacher. Of cou