The purpose of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is to provide necessary financial assistance to the party to the matrimonial dispute who has no independent income of his own sufficient for her or his support or to bear the expenses of the proceedings.

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant assailing the legality of the order dated 3.9.19 passed by the Family Court No.1, Bikaner in Civil Case No.53/18, whereby while allowing an application preferred by the respondent under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short "the Act of 1955"), the appellant is directed to pay maintenance pendente lite a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month to the respondent-Smt. Annapurna for herself and Rs.3,000/- per month for her son. That apart, the appellant is directed to pay a lump sum Rs.35,000/- towards litigation expenses to the respondent.

2. The appellant filed a petition against the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Act of 1955. During the pendency of the petition, the respondent filed an application under Section 24 of the Act of 1955, claiming maintenance pendente lite from the appellant a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month for herself and her son; Rs.15,000/- towards the litigation expenses and travelling expenses for attending each date of hearing before the Family Court, Bikaner. The respondent averred in the application that she has no source of income whereas, the appellant, an electrician, is earning Rs. 25,000-30,000 per month.

3. The appellant filed a reply to the application contending that the respondent engaged in stitching and art work on sarees, is earning Rs.10,000-15,000 per month. The appellant denying his monthly income as alleged by the respondent, averred that he is earning only Rs.4,000 to 5,000 per month.

4. After due consideration of the rival submissions, the Family Court determined the maintenance pendente lite payable by the appellant to the respondent for herself as Rs.4,000/-, Rs.3,000/- per month for her son and a lump sum Rs. 35,000/- towards the litigation expenses.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the respondent has deserted the appellant and therefore, she is not entitled for any maintenance. The Family Court has seriously erred in ignoring the fact that the respondent has her own source of income. It is submitted that without there being any cogent evidence regarding the appellant's income, the maintenance awarded by the Family Court is apparently excessive.

6. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material on record.

7. Indisputably, the purpose behind Section 24 of the Act of 1955 is to provide necessary financial assistance to the party to the matrimonial dispute who has no independent income of his own sufficient for her or his support or to bear the expenses of the proceedings. While considering the application for award of interim maintenance, the relevant consideration is the inability of the spouse to maintain himself or herself for want of independent income or inadequacy of the income to maintain at the level of social status of other spouse. No hard and fast rule can be laid down for determination of the amount of interim maintenance.

8. Admittedly, no evidence was brought on record by the appellant to establish that the respondent has her own source of income. Though, the appellant had denied his sources of income as alleged by the respondent but it was not even the case of the appellant that he has no source of income whatsoever. The fact that the appellant is working as an electrician is not denied. Obviously, while working as an electrician, the appellant must be earning a reasonable income and thus, the Family Court has committed no error in determining the monthly income of the appellant at Rs.15,000. The factum of respondent deserting the appellant cannot be a ground to deny the maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Act of 1955.

9. Thus, in absence of any evidence regarding the respondent having any adequate source of income, in the considered opinion of this Court, after due consideration of the facts and the circumstances of the case, the amount of maintenance pendente lite a sum of Rs.7,000/- per month determined by the Fami