vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3889 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.3889 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.3889 OF 2008 Smt.Smita Laxman Joshi ... Petitioner V/s. Laxman @ Devenra Vinayak Joshi ... Respondent Mr.M.S. Karnik for Petitioner Mr.Milind Deshmukh for Respondent CORAM: SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J MHATRE, J MHATRE, J. DATED: DECEMBER 11, 2008 DECEMBER 11, 2008 DECEMBER 11, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The challenge in this petition is to the order passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nashik dated 7.3.2008. The learned Judge has rejected the application filed by the petitioner u/s 24 for interim maintainance and expenses for herself during the pendency of the marriage petition. 2. The only reason for rejecting the application is that the petitioner had an independent source of income. Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act reads as under: "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 proceedings, it may, on the application of the : 2 : 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 cour to be reasonable." 3. Therefore, unless the wife has an independent income which is sufficient to support herself, the court must consider what would be the reasonable amount payable to her by the husband as maintainance. There is no finding in the impugned order to the effect that the income that the Petitioner earns is sufficient to support herself or her minor child. In the present case the respondent, in his reply to the interim application, has in fact stated that he was sending the respondent a sum of Rs.3000/- per month for 21 months. In these circumstances, the learned Judge ought to have considered the question on merits rather than rejecting it in the manner that he has. 4. In this view of the matter, the petition is allowed. The interim application is remanded to the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nashik for a fresh hearing. The Court will consider the necessary evidence which the parties may place on record before determining whether the petitioner has an independent source of income sufficient for her upkeep. 5. The petition is disposed of accordingly.