Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.: This revision petition is being disposed of on merits at the admission stage with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has assailed As order of District Judge, Kinnaur Sessions Division at Rampur, in case No.62/6 of 1996 passed on 31.10.1996 whereby the petition filed under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short the Act) by Smt Vidya Devi respondent herein has been allowed and die petitioner is ordered to pay maintenance at the rate of 1000 - per month during the divorce petition and Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses to the respondent

3. The short facts of the case are that respondent Vidya Devi filed a petition against the petitioner for seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. In her petition, she alleged that the marriage was contracted with the petitioner in the year 1989 in a temple at Jakhu, Shimla. Petitioner has rebutted and denied the solemnisation of the marriage with the respondent and contended that the respondent had already contracted marriage with one Sh. M.L. Ghumta Forest Contractor and she is residing with him till date. During the pendency of these annulment proceedings, respondent filed a petition under section 24 of the Act, which was allowed by the impugned order as stated above.

4. The petitioners counsel vehemently argued that the respondent was earlier married to Sh. M. L. Ghumta, thus, according to him she is not his legally wedded wife and further that the petitioner has never contracted marriage with her. He has contended that the respondent is not entitled to claim maintenance under section 24 of the Act. In support of his contention, he has relied upon Mukan Kunwarr. Ajeet Chand (AIR 1958 Rajasthan 322), Govindrao Ranoji Musale v. Sou. Anandibai & anr., AIR 1976 Bombay 433, Smt. Gtmgu Ptundlik Waghmare, v. Pundlik Maroti Waghmare & anr, AIR 1979 Bombay 264,Am/. Sarvo Deviv. Shri Lashari 1983 Sim.L.C. 221 and Laxmibai v. AyodhyaPrasad alias Ramatihar AIR 1991 Madhya Pradesh 47.

5. In the Act, the status of a wife is not defined. Section 24 of the Act clearly lays down that 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 sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses, of the proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife or the husband, order the respondent to pay the petitioner the expenses of the proceedings, and monthly maintenance.

6. In Mukan Kunwars case (supra), the Court observed that the award maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings under section 24 is doubt in the discretion of Court. But that discretion is-a judicial one exercised on sound legal principles and not by caprice or chance or humour. No hard and fast role can however be laid down, the exercise of the discretion depending upon the circumstances of each particular case. The question is that was not directly connected with the determination of the status of parties the facts of that case are not applicable in the present case. In Govindrao Ranoji case (supra), the learned Single Judge while dealing with an applicant under section 25(1) of the Act said as under: Lastly, if the words "wife" and "husband" were construed in their strict literal sense, then they would refer only to parties to a subsisting marriage and in the case of divorced wife or divorced husband or those who have obtained decree of annulment of voidable marriage they cannot strictly be described as wife and husband. But one has to concede that such persons Would be included within the scope of the words "wife" and "husband". If this is so, then no objection could be taken to the interpretation of the words "wife" and "husband" so as to include in them a man and a woman who have gone through a ceremony of a Hindu Marriage which would have been valid but for the provisions of section 11 read with Clauses (i), (iv) and (v) of section 5 of the Act. The learned Single Ju