R.P. Awasthy, J.

1. The petitioner, named above, has filed the present revision petition against the order dated 10-3-1992 passed by Smt. Minj, IV Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Jabalpur. By virtue of the said order, the non-applicant (herein) has been ordered to pay maintenance allowance to the petitioner (herein) at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month during the pendency of the case and also to pay Rs. 1500/- for meeting expenditure of the litigation.

2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner is the married wife of the non-applicant and the non-applicant resides at Bargi Nagar, district Jabalpur while the petitioner is residing with her parents at Jabalpur. The non-applicant filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('the Act' in short) for a decree of divorce being passed in his favour and against the present petitioner. In the said case, the present petitioner filed an application under Section 24 of the Act mentioning therein that the non-applicant, who is a junior engineer in the Irrigation Department, was getting a salary of Rs. 2500/- per month and also had agricultural lands from which property he gets an annual income of Rs. 50,000/-. Thus, the total annual income of the present non-applicant is Rs. 80,000/- and no one, except the present petitioner, is dependent on him. The petitioner has no independent source of income and she is rather constrained to live with her parents.

3. The non-applicant denied the said allegations and submitted that at the time of filing of the petition, his salary was Rs. 1682/- per month and at the time of passing of the order, his salary was 2318/-. Only agricultural land having an area of three acres and a half, which was given to him by his uncle, was recorded in his name. However, the said land also was in possession of his uncle and he was not deriving any income from the said land. The petitioner was serving in some school situated in Hatital Colony and was getting Rs. 850/- per month as salary.

4. After recording evidence, the trial court came to a finding that the present petitioner had no independent source of income and that the presesnt non-applicant was getting Rs. 1682/- per month as his salary at the time when the application under Section 24 of the Act was moved and was getting Rs. 2318/- per month when the order was passed. The trial court also came to a finding that the non-applicant was not required to maintain anyone else, except the petitioner. On the basis of the said findings, the trial court ordered that the non-applicant should pay to the petitioner maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month from the date of filing of the application under Section 24 of the Act, till the pendency of the case. It also awarded Rs. 1500/- for meeting expenditure of the present litigation.

5. As far as the lump sum amount ordered to be paid for meeting ex- penditure of the litigation, the said amount appears to be reasonable and does not call for interference by the revisional court.

6. As regards maintenance allowance pendente lite several facts have to be taken into consideration. Now, it is a settled principle of law that there is no hard and fast rule for allowing one-fifth or one-fourth or one third of the income of the husband as maintenance allowance. In this regard, the amplest discretion is conferred on. the Court. Any decision under the present section on the subject of alimony must necessarily turn on the circumstances of each case and no fixed rules can be expected on the question. Therefore, neither the minimum nor the maximum in terms of percentage can be fixed for the maintenance allowance under Section 24 of the Act. This section does not stipulate anything about the standard to be maintained by either of the parties that the wife must be maintained at the same standard as the husband or vice versa. Nevertheless, it has also to be considered that while awarding alimony under Section 24 of the Act, the Court must