JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner-husband, plaintiff in a matrimonial suit, aggrieved by an order passed by the Family Court on an application filed by the wife-defendant under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, whereby the Family Court has granted a sum of Rs. 1,500/- per month as interim maintenance and a lump sum amount of Rs. 2,000 for contesting litigation, approached this Court by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Court has not considered the fact that husband has no independent source of income and further that he is fully dependant on his father, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed. The provision of Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act is reproduced below:-
24.Maintenamce 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:
Provided that the application for the payment of the expenses of the proceeding 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.
4. A perusal of the order clearly demonstrates that what is required by the Court is to find out before passing any order on an application under Section 24 is that the defendant, husband or wife as the case may be, has no source of income irrespective of the fact whether plaintiff has any independent source of income or not. In this view of the matter the argument of the learned counsellor the petitioner that the husband is totally dependant on his father has no bearing so far as the order under Section 24 of the Act is concerned.
5. No other argument has been advanced.
6. Lastly it has been submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Family Court may be directed to try the suit within a time frame. In the facts and circumstance of the case I do not find it to be a fit case in which such order can be passed. However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the hearing of the suit.
7. In view of what has been stated above this writ petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed.