( 1 ) THIS miscellaneous first appeal is directed against the order parsed by the Civil Judge, Gulbarga, on IA-II in MC. 77 of 1974, granting maintenance pendente lite to the respondent-the wife, and her child at the rate of Rs. 50 and Rs. 25 per month respectively. ( 2 ) THE appellant is the husband. He filed an application for divorce against the respondent. During the course of the proceedings the respondent filed an application under S. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), claiming maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 250 per month and expenses of the proceedings amounting to Rs. 400. She stated in her application that the petitioner (appellant) was drawing a salary of Rs. 500 per month and also doing money lending business. She claimed maintenance of Rs. 250 per month for herself and her son born to the petitioner. ( 3 ) NO evidence wa,s adduced on behalf of the parties. The learned civil Judge after considering the affidavits filed by the parties, awarded maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 50 to the respondent and rs. 25 to her son per month. ( 4 ) THE petitioner has challenged the award of maintenance to the respondent and her son in this appeal. ( 5 ) AT the out set, it may be stated that the grant of maintenance to the son of the petitioner and the respondent at the rate of Rs. 25 per month, is not permissible under S. 24 of the Act. S. 24 of the Act says that where in any proceeding under the 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 maintenance 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. ( 6 ) IT is clear from the provisions of S. 24 of the Act that the wife or the husband alone is entitled to claim maintenance pendents lite. ( 6 ) IT is clear from the provisions of S. 24 of the Act that the wife or the husband alone is entitled to claim maintenance pendents lite. Therefore, the award of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 25 per month to the son of the petitioner and the respondent, cannot be sustained in law. Hence, that portion of the impugned order is hereby set aside. ( 7 ) NOW (turning to the award of maintenance pendents lite to the respondent, it may be stated that the wife is entitled to claim maintenance pendents lite. ( 8 ) THE contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner is that the learned Civil Judge without recording any evidence as to the income of the petitioner, has erroneously reached the conclusion that Rs. 250 pm was the income of the petitioner. He, further, contended that even assuming that the income of the petitioner was Rs. 250 pm,, the wife is entitled to 1/5th of the amount as has been held in Prasanna Kumar v. Sureswari, AIR. 1969 Orissa 12. ( 9 ) IT is true that no evidence has been recorded to ascertain the income of the petitioner. But, the learned Civil Judge, in the course of the order while determining the total emoluments received by the petitioner, has observed thus". . . . . The Court can also take judicial notice of pay scales and allowances that are prevailing in the service under KSRTC. The govt pay scales and the Govt rates of allowances are being given to the employees in the KSRTC. If the pay scales of the Govt and the allowances of Govt are taken into consideration, it appears that the total emoluments stated by the respondent-wife are excessive. At the same time, the total emoluments stated by the petitioner-husband are also not correct. He has never disclosed the additional DA that is being given to him and also the special allowances given to him whenever he makes night halts in his duties. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner-husband is getting not less than rs. 250 per month. "it is not possible to disagree with the finding of the learned Civil Judge. The petitioner has admitted that he is getting an income of Rs. 200. But the Court has fixed his income at Rs. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner-husband is getting not less than rs. 250 per month. "it is not possible to disagree with the finding of the learned Civil Judge. The petitioner has admitted that he is getting an income of Rs. 200. But the Court has fixed his income at Rs. 250 since he had failed to disclose the additional DA and the special allowance he has been getting whenever he makes night halts. Therefore, it is not possible to say that the finding of the learned Civil Judge on the question of income is based on no evidence. Hence, the income of the petitioner fixed at Rs. 250 pm by the learned Civil Judge, is perfectly justified. ( 10 ) THE wife has been awarded 1/5th of the total amount of the income of the petitioner. It is also justified in view of the decision cited above by the appellant's Counsel. Therefore, the order under appeal does not call for interference. ( 11 ) FOR the reasons stated above, this appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs. If the respondent is aggrieved with regard to the maintenance of her child, she is at liberty to take steps under law to get maintenance awarded for her son. --- *** --- .