JWALA PRASAD Vs. MEENA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant is the husband of Smt. Meena Devi respondent No. 1 and has filed a petition under S.9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). On receipt of the summons of the aforesaid petition respondent No. 1 made an application for grant of Rs. 200/- per month for pendente lite maintenance and Rs. 500/- as expenses for contesting the petition filed by the applicant on the ground that she was an illiterate lady and had no independent source of income to maintain herself. Her case was that the applicant was a Mistri and had income of about Rs. 1000/- per month. This application was contested by the applicant but was allowed by the trial Court by its order dated 31st August, 1985. By this order a sum of Rs. 200/- per month had been awarded as pendente lite maintenance and Rs. 500/- as expenses. It is this order against which the present revision has been preferred.

(2.) It was urged by counsel for the applicant that the trial Court has committed an error in allowing the maintenance from the date of the institution of the petition under S.9 of the aforesaid Act. According to him maintenance should have been allowed only prospectively from the date of the order. I find it difficult to agree with this submission. The application on which the order sought to be revised was passed was made by respondent No. 1 under S.24 of the Act. It is true that in the body of the section the words "pendente lite maintenance" have not been used and it has been stated that the Court may direct the respondent to pay monthly during the proceeding. It is settled law that if there is any ambiguity the marginal note to the section can be read as a guide to the intention of the legislature. The marginal note to S.24 is : "Maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings." The import of the word pendente lite is well known. Pendente lite means during the pendency of the litigation. In other words it refers to the period between the date of the initiation of the proceeding and the date of its conclusion. The litigation in the instant ease started with the making of the application under S.9 of the Act by the applicant. Consequently the trial Court was justified in directing the applicant to pay monthly maintenance with effect from the date when he had made the application under S.9 of the Act.

(3.) It was then urged by counsel for the applicant that S.24 of the Act contemplates grant of expenses only to the petitioner in the main petition. According to him since the petitioner in the main petition was the applicant no order directing the applicant to pay monthly maintenance or expenses to the respondent in the main petition could be passed. I find it difficult to agree with this submission either. S.24 of the Act reads as hereunder :-