Future maintenance should also be granted.

1. Petitioner in I.A. No. 43 of 1997 in H.M.O.P. No. 22 of 1997 on the file of the Subordinate Judges Court at Sankari, is the revision petitioner.

2. Respondent herein filed an application for divorce under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Application was filed on 3. 1997. An application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for getting interim alimony and litigation expenses, was filed by the petitioner on 28. 1997. In her application for getting interim alimony, the petitioner alleged that her husband is getting sufficient income and she is not in a position to maintain herself. According to her, herself and her child have been deserted by the husband and they are put to great mental agony and financial difficulty and are living in misery. They are being maintained by her parents and brothers. To the main divorce petition also, the petitioner filed her counter and thereafter 31 postings were given to enquire into the matter. The respondent has changed his vakalath and another counsel was also engaged on 26. 1999. Finally, on 8. 1999, respondents counsel submitted before the lower court that he has no instruction. The husband was called and found to be absent, the main application was dismissed for default. On the same day, the lower court passed an order on I. A. No. 45 of 1997, seeking interim maintenance. The lower court directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.500 as interim maintenance and. Rs.750 as litigation expenses.

3. The said order is challenged by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the amount awarded by the lower court is not sufficient to meet the expenses of the wife and child.

4. Respondent has also entered appearance before this Court and I heard both sides.

5. After hearing counsel on both sides, I feel that the attempt of the respondent is only to over reach the petitioner and see that the application has become infructuous. Along with the Typeset of Papers, petitioner has produced dates of postings and I do not know how long the respondent was seeking time to prove the case.

6. It is well settled that if an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is filed, that must be given preference before proceeding with the merits of the case. The reason being that a person complaining that they cannot maintain themselves should not be compelled to fight a litigation, A person in poverty will not be in a position to fight a litigation on equal terms. A husband who is bound to maintain his wife and child, has protracted the proceedings for for about xh years and got adjournment in the main application for more than 30 postings and finally, the counsel submitted that he has no instructions and got the main application dismissed for default. From the above conduct, it is clear that the respondent was successful in delaying the decision in I.A. No. 43 of 1997 and petitioner herein was denied maintenance, which she is legally entitled to.

7. The approach of the lower court is also not in accordance with law. When an application is filed for interim maintenance on the allegation that they are not in a position to maintain themselves and they are starving, the lower court was generous enough in granting adjournments. The lower court also took this application as if an ordinary civil suit. The human aspect of the matter was not taken by the lower court in all its seriousness.

8. The further question arises for consideration is, whether the impugned, order is liable to be revised or not. The application was filed on 28. 1997 in the form of an affidavit and application, no counter has been filed by the respondent, herein. Even though time was granted for about 1 1? years, the averments in the affidavit remain unchallenged and that fact also ought to have been taken by the court below. While disposing of the application on 8. 1999, the lower court has really given only decree for past maintenance and the cost which has already been incurred for conducting