JUDGMENT Henderson, J. - As to the costs, I am asked to make an order directing the Respondent to pay the costs of the petition notwithstanding that the petition has been dismissed. 2. Under Clause 16 of the Indian Divorce Act, the High Court may order the costs of counsel and witnesses and otherwise to be paid by the parties or such one or more of them as it thinks fit, including a wife, if she have separate property and Section 7 of the same Act enables Courts in this country to give relief according to the principles and rules upon which the Divorce Court in England acts and gives relief. The principles and rules upon which the Court in England used to act in exercising its discretion as to a wife's costs are discussed in Robertson v. Robertson (1881) L.R. 6 P.D. 119 and Otway v. Otway (1888) L.R. 13 P.D. 141. It has been the rule in England and it has been followed in this country also, that a wife should not be precluded by want of means from establishing her case either as Petitioner or Respondent and it was usual for the wife to apply pending the hearing that the husband should make a deposit or give security for the estimated costs that might be incurred by his wife. At one time in England it was held that under Rule 159 of the English Divorce Court Rules the discretion of the Judge to allow costs at the hearing to the wife was limited to the amount for which security had been given or deposit made by the husband, but in Robertson v. Robertson it was decided that where the wife was allowed costs and where here were no improper proceedings taken on her behalf she should be entitled to the actual costs incurred by her. In the present case the Petitioner did not apply that a deposit should be made or security given by the Respondent for her costs and now that the hearing has been concluded, it is said that she has not been precluded from establishing her case by any want of means and that no order therefore can now be made against the Respondent for payment of her costs. 3. 3. It seems to me, however, that if an order can be made allowing costs in addition to the amount for which security has been given or to the amount deposited, there is no reason why in cases where no security has been given or deposit made an order should not be passed directing the husband to pay all costs reasonably incurred by his wife. Robertson v. Robertson (1881) L.R. 6 P.D. 119 and Otway v. Otway (1888) L.R. 13 P.D. 141, however, were both cases with respect to marriages which took place prior to the Married Woman's Property Act, 1882. In Otway v. Otway (1888) L.R. 13 P.D. 141 at page 155 of the report, Cotton L.J. said:--"If this marriage had been after the Act of 1882, we should have had to consider how far that old rule would apply where a woman was put, after that Act, in the position of a femme sole retaining all her property and being in a position to sue and be sued. But these parties were married in 1879, before that Act; and although a married woman married before that Act does retain a right to property which comes to her after the passing of the Act and though under the Act of 1870 she has a right to certain property which came to her after the Act, we do not know that she had any such property and therefore, in my opinion we must decide this case independently of the position of a married woman under the recent legislation. If a case comes before us where a married woman has been married after the Act of 1882, it will be a very serious, question for consideration how far we ought to follow the old rule, or what decision we ought to give. I only mention that to show that it does not in the present case, I think, affect the decision and we do not in any way fetter ourselves by the present decision as regards any case which may arise as regards a woman married after the Act of 1882. 4. Now it seems to be admitted that the parties, here are not governed by Section 4 of the Indian Succession Act, hut are subject to the Married Woman's Property Act, 1882. 5. 4. Now it seems to be admitted that the parties, here are not governed by Section 4 of the Indian Succession Act, hut are subject to the Married Woman's Property Act, 1882. 5. My attention has not been drawn to any case since that of Otway v. Otway (1888) L.R. 13 P.D. 141, in which the effect of that Act has been considered in England as regards a woman married since the passing of it, but in this country in Proby v. Proby ILR (1879) Cal. 357, which turned upon the effect of Section 4 of the Indian Succession Act--a provision which places married women to whom it applies somewhat in the same position as women subject to the Married Woman's Property Act, Pontifex and Wilson JJ., without saying that under no circumstances will the Court order a husband to give security for his wife's costs, expressed an opinion that it should be done under special circumstances only and there being no special circumstances shown, these learned Judges refused the application that the husband should be ordered to deposit the estimated costs of his wife, the Petitioner. From the evidence in the case before me, it appears that the Petitioner has no money of her own and it was admitted that if an application had been made before the hearing for the Respondent to give security or to deposit the amount of the estimated costs of the Petitioner there would have been no answer. Had an order for the Respondent to make a deposit or give security for costs been made, I should have allowed the Petitioner her costs; and if these costs had exceeded the estimated costs, I should not have limited the order to the amount estimated. In a case where it is shown that the wife has no money of her own, I do not think the mere fact that no deposit has been made or security given should be an obstacle to the making of an order against her husband to pay her costs. I therefore direct the Respondent to pay his wife's costs as between party and party on scale No. 2. The order does not, however, cover the costs of the Commissioner sent down to Midnapore, as those costs have been separately dealt with.