DHARAMBIR SINGH Vs. MANJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent filed a petition under section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter to be called the Act) for judicial separation against her husband (the petitioner). During the pendency of this petition she filed an application under section 24 of the Act for the grant of expenses of the litigation and also maintenance pendente lite. The trial Court allowed this application and granted expenses and maintenance by ex-parte order dated 29th November, 1974 By this order an amount of Rs 100/- was allowed as litigation expense and Rs. 150/- as maintenance pendente lite. The present petitioner move the trial Court for setting aside this ex-parte order, the proceedings in which are still pending. The respondent filed another application undo section 24 of the Act for litigation expenses as well as maintenance in these subsequent proceedings. The petitioner raised the preliminary objection that the second application under section 24 of the Act was not maintainable. This objection did not find favour with the trial Court an it was held that the second application was also maintainable. It is this order which has been challenged in the present revision petition.

(2.) It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that section 24 of the Act contemplates only one application during the pendency of the main petition under the provisions of the Act and the second application under this provision was not maintainable. A close perusal of section 24 of the Act, however, shows that any of the parties who has no independent income to maintain herself or himself and t meet the necessary expenses of the proceedings, has the right to claim litigation expenses and interim maintenance "in any proceedings" under this Act. The provision is clear and includes all proceedings arising out of or in any manner linked with the main petition. Clearly the proceedings arising out of the application by the husband to get the ex-parte order under section 24 set aside are linked with the main petition. The argument that the second application does not come within the ambit of the provision is not at all tenable.

(3.) It has then been contended by the learned counsel that a specific amount of maintenance was allowed to the respondent by the ex-parte order dated 29th November, 1978, and the same will be continued to be in operation till the same is set aside. As such the respondent having been granted maintenance under one order. She could not be entitled to any amount of maintenance twice. There can be no dispute that under section 24 of the Act one of the parties is entitled to a reasonable amount in lieu of his or her maintenance during the pendency of the main proceedings under the Act. Maintenance means any amount which may be sufficient for the subsistence and reasonable living of the part) concerned. Once this amount is granted and continues to be available, it cannot be granted to the same party twice. Otherwise the result will be that he or she will be getting double the amount of maintenance. I have no doubt that while considering the second application of the respondent on merits, this aspect will be given due consideration. So far as the expenses of the proceedings are concerned, there is no question of duplication of the same because expenses are granted in lieu of particular proceedings.