1. - In assailing the order made on September 3, 1983 by the learned District Judge, Kota, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there was no material on which the learned Court would have come to the conclusion that the non-petitioner, the wife of the petitioner, had no independent income sufficient for her support and for the necessary expenses of the proceedings. Even the affidavit of the non-petitioner had not been filed in support of the application of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short 'the Act'). It appears that an application for divorce under Section 13 of the Act was filed seeking a dissolution of his marriage with the non-petitioner by a decree of divorce. In that application and application under section 24 of the Act for alimony till the disposal of the application under section 13 of the Act was filed. In that application it was stated by the non-petitioner that there is no income of her to support herself and the petitioner. her husband, was earning one lacs per year and was having 50 bighas of agricultural land. She claimed Rs. 500/- per month as alimony and Rs. 400/- expenses of litigation. The application was contested by the non-petiti