M. L. CHATURVEDI, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying mainly for the quashing of an order passed by the District Judge on 24th January, 1956, and for the issue of a Writ of mandamus directing the District Judge to decide afresh the petitioners application for grant of maintenance and expenses of the proceedings, pending before the District Judge.

( 2 ) THE petitioner was married to the respondent in April 1948 and two children have been born, both of whom happen to be girls. It is a matter of controversy whether the petitioner refused to live with her husband or the husband did not permit the petitioner to live with him. The husband, namely, the first respondent made an application under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act (Act No. 25 of 1955 ). Under Section 10 of the above Act, either party to a marriage is authorised to present a petition to the District Court praying for a decree for judicial separation on the grounds enumerated in the section. During the pendency of this petition, the wife who is the respondent in the petition, made an application to the District Judge under Section 24 of the Act for the grant of maintenance during the pendency of the proceedings and for the expenses of the proceedings. This application has been dismissed by the District Judge by the impugned order, On the preliminary ground that it is not possible to pass an order granting maintenance pending the litigation or the expenses of the proceedings against the original petitioner who starts the proceedings under the Hindu Marriage act. In order to appreciate the view taken by the learned District Judge it appears to be desirable to quote Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The section runs as follows:

"where in any proceeding under this Act it appears to the Court that cither 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, 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. "

What the section says is that it is open to the Court on an application of the wife or the husband to "order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceedings". The learned district Judge says that the petitioner here must refer to the original petitioner who started the main proceedings, whereas the contention on behalf of the wife was that the word "petitioner" refers here to the person who made the application for the grant of maintenance pendente lite and expenses, and not to the original petitioner who started the proceedings. I am unable to accept the view of the learned District Judge. It would be very unlikely for the legislature to have intended that in all the cases instituted under the Hindu Marriage Act, the pendente lite maintenance and expenses should be payable only to the spouse who happens to be the petitioner starting the proceedings under the Act. The interpretation put upon the word "petitioner" would mean that even if the husband is in affluent circumstances and the wife is unable to meet the expenses of litigation, even then if the husband happens to come to the court first, he can successfully avoid the payment of maintenance and expenses to the wife. Such an interpretation would mean that the Legislature put the person who came to the Court first, in a more advantageous position than the other side, by making it impossible for the respondent to get the expenses from the original petitioner I think that the Legislature in Section 24 has used the words "application" and "petition" as being interchangeable ones. This is further strengthened by the fact that in at least two sections of this Act, an unusual expression has been used. In Section 10 (2

Click Here to Read the rest of this document