Where in any proceeding under this Act it appears to the court that either 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 petitioner’s own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the court to be reasonable:
Image Source: i.ytimg.com
[Provided that the application for the payment of the expenses of the proceedings and such monthly sum during the proceeding, shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of service of notice on the wife or the husband, as the case may be].
Note:
ADVERTISEMENTS:
In lndra Paul Kaur v. Tejinder Pal Singh, 1997 AIHC 157 (Del.), it was held that the maintenance pendente lite may be granted based upon actual needs of the petitioner and it is not necessary to divide the income of the respondent based on number of dependents.
It has been held in Chari Lai v. Surjit Kour, AIR 1997 J&K 72, that the proceedings under s. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay for setting aside an ex parte order cannot be treated as proceedings under s. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The maintenance pendente lite is permissible even in the case filed under s. 11 of this Act for nullity of marriage. Where under s. 125 Cr. PC only lawfully wedded wife is entitled for maintenance, a liberal interpretation of the words husband and wife has to be given under s. 24 of this Act permitting even the persons claiming to be the wife or husband to claim maintenance. Sarbjit Singh v. Charanjit Kaur, AIR 1997 P&H 66; see also Krishnakant Mulashankar Vyas v. Reena Krishna Vyas, AIR 1999 Bom. 127; Iqbal Singh v. Jaswinder Kaur, AIR 2003 NOC 29 (P&H).
It may be noted that maintenance granted under s. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is not a bar for granting maintenance under s. 125 Cr.P.C. Vallabhaneni Yedukondalu v. Vallabhaneni Nages- waramma, 2000 Cr.LJ 333 (AP) : 2000 (1) Crimes 394.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Even though the application for maintenance under s. 24 is to be preferred by the wife, she may include the maintenance of the daughter in her application. Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun, AIR 1997 SC 3397: (1997) 7 SCC 7.
In Remani Menon v. K.G.Omnakuttan, AIR 2004 Guj. 23, the court held that maintenance under section 24 does not mean only base maintenance of food and clothing but also includes basic additional expenses of education of child and quantum of maintenance has to be commensurate with the status of family.