BERI, C.J.—This is an appeal by a wife, who is defending a suit for judicial separation under the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter called "the Act") in the Court of the District Judge, Jodhpur, directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated July 4, 1973, who summarily dismissed her appeal, wherein she had claimed additional expenses from her husband under sec. 24 of the Act.

2. In S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 49/72 this Court had allowed a sum of Rs. 500/-to the wife for meeting her expenses of the litigation by its order dated 6-4-1972. The wife urged before the trial Court by an application dated 4-4-73 that in order to defend herself she had to go up to the High Court twice. Apart from this expenditure, several applications were moved by her before the trial Court, besides the petitioner having amended his petition she had to amend her written statement and she had thus incurred expenditure to the extent of Rs. 765/-, which sum did not include the professional fees of the lawyers for the trial Court. The learned District Judge observed, reading the order dated 6-4-72 passed by this Court, that it "conclusively determined the right of the non-petitioner to claim expenses to contest and defend this matrimonial case............and the expenses now claimed by her are unreasonable. There should be some limit to the budget of expenses in such cases." Dis-satisfied the wife preferred an appeal and the learned single Judge found that no case was made out for increasing the amount of expenses in trial court awarded by this Court on 6-4-72 and the appeal was summarily dismissed and the wife is before us in special appeal.

3. We issued notice to the learned counsel for the husband as to why this appeal be not admitted and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties at some length the learned counsel agreed that arguments advanced by them may be considered as their submissions in respect of the final hearing of this appeal. Therefore, we decide the appeal on merits.

4. The first question is, whether this Court had conclusively fixed the expenses by its order dated 6-4-72? The order says,—

"Out of this amount of Rs. 500/- a sum of Rs. 400/- will be adjusted towards the expenses of litigation in the trial Court and Rs. 100/- towards the expenses of this appeal. It is, however, further made clear that this amount of Rs. 400/will not include the expenses which the present appellant may have to incur in paying reasonable witness expenses in the lower court."

5. Would it be right to say that this conclusively determined expenses regardless of the course of litigation? The answer is in the negative. It is not always possible for any court to anticipate the situations in the course of a litigation and it should be read to mean that if the litigation proceeded normally this amount was assessed to be necessary expense or the probable costs. As would appear from para 7 of the application dated 4-4-73 before the learned District Judge that the wife had filed (i) an unsuccessful appeal No. 88/72; (ii) a successful revision-application No. 312/72; (iii) some 30 applications besides incurring other expenses. All this could not be anticipated and it is erroneous, therefore, to say that the question of necessary expenses stood finally concluded by the order of this Court dated 6 4-1972.

6. Under the Act a defending wife is entitled to the necessary expenses of the proceeding in terms of sec. 24 of the Act, which reads,—

"24 Maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceeding :—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 proceeding, is 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 th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document