WP 14430.11 Writ Petition No. 14430 of 2011 19/10/2011 Shri Naveen Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. None for the respondent. Because of insistence of learned counsel for the petitioner matter is heard. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against order dated 11-07-2011; whereby, an application under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1955') filed by respondent has been allowed and the petitioner herein is directed to pay Rs. 1,200/- per month maintenance pendente lite. The divorce suit by the petitioner is on the allegation of adultery. During pendency whereof respondent filed an application under section 24 of the Act of 1955 for maintenance pendente lite. This application was opposed on the very same ground on which the divorce suit has been instituted, i.e., the respondent since is living in adulterous life, she is not entitled for maintenance. Plea was also raised that as per sub-section (4) of the Section 125 of the WP 14430.11 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 if a person is living an adulterous life then such person is not entitled for interim maintenance. The trial Court after considering the rival contentions held that since respondent has no independent source of income, allowed her application directing for payment of Rs. 1,200/- per month as maintenance pendente lite. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order. It is urged that the trial Court ought to have considered he antecedent of the respondent and that she is leading an adulterous life. It is urged that in these circumstances the application under section 24 ought to have been dismissed. Considered he submissions. Section 24 of the Act of 1955 stipulates :- “24.Maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings.- 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.” WP 14430.11 The provision nowhere stipulates that either wife or the husband during pendency of a proceeding, be that even a divorce petition based on allegation of adultery, then ground raised for the divorce would be vital in deciding the entitlement of pendente lite maintenance under section 24 of the Act of 1955. If the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted that the character antecedent of the husband on a wife as the case may be is to be taken into consideration while deciding the application under section 24 of the Act of 1955, the same would be reading something which is not intended by the legislature. The provision has been enacted for grant of maintenance pendente lite to a party in a matrimonial proceeding. The factors which are to be considered was as elucidated in Jasbir Kaur Sehgal (Smt.) v. District Judge Dehradun and others : (1997) 7 SCC 7 wherein it is observed : “8..........No set formula can be laid for fixing the amount of maintenance. It has, in the very nature of things, to depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. Some scope for leverage can, however, be always there. The court has to consider the status of the parties, their respective needs, the capacity of the husband to pay having regard to his reasonable expenses WP 14430.11 for his own maintenance and of those he is obliged under the law and statutory but involuntary payments or deductions. The amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband and also that she does not feel handicapped in the prosecution of her case. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or extortionate. In the circumstances of the present case we fix maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 5000 per month payable by the respondent husband to the appellant-wife.” The impugned order when adjudged on these principles, does not warrant an interference. It is reiterated that the matter has been heard and decided on the insistence of learned counsel for the petitioner, though the report of service of notice on respondent is still awaited. However, since the petition is sans merit, the same is dismissed without further waiting for service on respondent. Certified copy as per rules. (SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE SC