JUDGMENT : DEOKI NANDAN, J. 1. The order of the court of the 1st Additional District Judge, Allahabad u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act awarding Rs. 200/- per month as maintenance pendente lite from 1st May, 1979 and Rs. 500/- towards expenses of the litigation has been assailed by this revision. The ground is that the rate at which maintenance has been awarded and the amount of the provision made for expenses of litigation are too low. 2. The second proviso to Section 115 of the CPC as amended in Uttar Pradesh lays down that the High Court shall not vary or reverse any order including an order deciding an issue, made in the course of a suit or other proceeding, except where, (i) the order, if so varied or reversed, would finally dispose off the suit or other proceeding; or (ii) the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made. The proceeding by way of the application u/s 24 did stand finally decided by the order sought to be revised. But that was a proceeding in the original petition for divorce in which it was made. The proceeding referred to in the proviso is the original proceeding and not a proceeding in a suit. This would be clear from the fact that throughout Section 115 as it now stands the word 'proceeding' occurs along with the word 'suit' which means that the proceeding must be an original proceeding other than a suit. It cannot mean a proceeding in a suit. The proceeding u/s 24 was merely an interlocutory proceeding and not an original proceeding. 3. Moreover, the rights of the parties are not finally adjudicated upon on an application u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is only an aid to the final decision of the suit or other proceeding for a decree of one of the four kinds contemplated by the Hindu Marriage Act. The rights of the parties to maintenance or costs are finally adjudicated upon at the time of passing of a decree or thereafter u/s 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is only an aid to the final decision of the suit or other proceeding for a decree of one of the four kinds contemplated by the Hindu Marriage Act. The rights of the parties to maintenance or costs are finally adjudicated upon at the time of passing of a decree or thereafter u/s 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act. No irreparable injury will be caused to the Petitioner even if the rate at which maintenance pendente lite allowed to her is less that what she is finally found to be entitled to u/s 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act or the provision for expenses of a proceeding made u/s 24 is found to be less than that allowable to her on the conclusion of the petition for divorce. The object of an order u/s 24 is to enable an indigent spouse to prosecute his/her case properly. It has not been shown to me that the rate at which maintenance pendente lite has been awarded or the provision made for the expenses of the proceeding is so meagre or so arbitrarily low as to prevent her from effectively defending the petition for divorce that has been filed against her and is pending. In view of these facts and circumstances, the revision is dismissed as not maintainable. There will be no order as to costs.