KAN SINGH, J.—This is husbands appeal directed against on order of the District Judge, Partapgarh, passed under sec. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, hereinafter referred to as the "Act", awarding Rs. 25/- as alimony pendente lite to the respondent-wife. From the order it is evident that the monthly income of the husband was taken to be Rs. 100/- and that of the wife at Rs. 175/- and yet Rs. 25/-were allowed to the wife as maintenance pendente lite.

2. In assailing the order learned counsel for the husband contends that the necessary condition for grant of maintenance pendente lite to the wife did not exist. Learned counsel maintains that maintenance could be granted to the wife if she had no independent income sufficient for her support and, therefore the order is illegal.

3. It appears that parties were married according to Hindu rites. Two children were born of the wedlock one was 2-1/2 years old and the other 8 years old. Both the children were admittedly living with the wife at Ujjain. On 22-3-72, the husband moved the petition under sec. 10 of the Act in the court of the District Judge, Partap Garh for judicial separation on the ground of desertion by the wife for a period exceeding two years. The wife entered appearance and on 28-4-72 she applied for maintenance pendente lite and for expenses of litigation under sec. 24 of the Act. The application was supported by an affidavit. In the application the wife stated that she was maintaining the two children and educating them and she was able to carry on with great difficulty. Consequently she prayed that maintenance at Rs. 150/- per month be allowed to her. In the affidavit in support of the application she stated that she was paying Rs. 35/- as house rent and for electricity expenses, Rs. 25/- for going to and coming from Nagda to Ujjain; she being employed at Nagda as a teacher. She further stated that she was spending Rs. 30/-per month over the education of the children besides maintaining them.

4. The husband contested the application. He, however, admitted that the two children were living with their mother, but he expressed his readiness to maintain the children, if they were given over to him. He also stated that the wife was living with her parents and was, therefore, saving her own income. He gave his income as Rs. 75/-to Rs 100/- per month.

5. I may read sec. 24 of the Act:

"S.24. Maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings—Where in any proceeding under this Act it appears to the court that 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 the proceeding, and monthly during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioners own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the court to be reasonable."

6. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that as the wife was having an independent income of her own she was not entitled to any maintenance pendente lite under sec. 24 of the Act. Learned counsel is right here. The plain language of sec. 24 bears out the submission. It is only when the concerning spouse has no independent income sufficient for her or his support that the court may order the other spouse to pay to him or her maintenance pendente lite and expenses of the litigation. In the present case the learned Judge has not ordered the payment of expenses of litigation and I am not concerned with it, at this stage. The only question is whether maintenance pendente lite should have been allowed to the wife.

7. In Mukan Kunwar vs. Ajeetchand (l), Jagat Narayan J., as he then was, in dealing with the scope of sec. 24 of the Act observed:

"The award of maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings under sec. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is in the discretion of the court. But this discretion has to be exercised on soun

Click Here to Read the rest of this document