JUDGMENT V. D. Misra, C. J.—This revision is directed against the order of Shri N. S. Shandil, District Judge, Simla Division, dismissing the application of the petitioner under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 2 The husband (respondent) filed a petition for grant of a decree of divorce on 29th September, 1976. The wife (petitioner) filed an application under section 24 for the grant of maintenance pendente lite and expenses of the proceedings. She asked for Rs. 5,000/- towards the expenses and a sum of Rs. 2,000/- for her maintenance with effect from 30th December, 1976. She averred that she had no independent income of her own whereas the husband, erstwhile Ruler of Keonthal, had an annual income of Rs.90,000/-. The husband resisted the application and alleged that the wife had a fixed deposit of Rs. 22,000/- in Grindlays Bark Ltd., Simla from which she was drawing interest at the Bank rate. She was stated to have another fixed deposit of Rs. 10,000/- in this Bank. It was also averred that a valuable thick deodar forest land, measuring 95 bighas and 2 biswas, situated at Junga, is owned by her, and that she had entered into an agreement with one Shri Anand Swaroop Goel for the sale of the standing trees of various classifications. 3. The parties examined themselves in support of their allegations. The petitioner admitted that she had Rs. 22,000/- with Grindlays Bank in fixed deposit which she had withdrawn and had deposited in her saving bank account after the respondent had filed a petition for divorce. She produced the passbook for the scrutiny of the court. She admitted that annual interest on this deposit was Rs. 990/-. She, however, explained that the husband had stopped supporting her since December, 1975 and she had to withdraw the amount to maintain herself. She had to spend about Rs. 1000/- or Rs. l,500/~ to purchase utensils, and in the month of August, 1976 she had to go to Chandigarh and get medical treatment from Dr. Subash and Mrs. Dr. Subash. It cost her about Rs. 5,000/-. She admitted that these Rs. 22,000/- was the advance from one Shri Hari Ram of Chail to when a few timber trees had been sold out of the forest land which had been given to her by the husband. She was not asked any question about her alleged fixed deposit of Rs. Dr. Subash. It cost her about Rs. 5,000/-. She admitted that these Rs. 22,000/- was the advance from one Shri Hari Ram of Chail to when a few timber trees had been sold out of the forest land which had been given to her by the husband. She was not asked any question about her alleged fixed deposit of Rs. 10,000/-nor the husband swore to any such deposit. 4. The husband admitted that the forest land in question given by him to his wife is entered as Jungle Dehat and people have grazing rights in it. He also admitted that he had surrendered this forest land to the Government in order to save his other land from the operation of the Land Ceiling Act. He further conceded that the litigation between Shri Anand Swaroop Goel and his wife, which was pending before the Senior Sub-Judge Solan in respect of the agreement relating to the said forest, had been compounded by him on behalf of the wife. 5. It is not disputed before me that the wife never had any income from the forest land in question except the sum of Rs. 22,000/- received from Shri Anand Swaroop Goel. And it was this amount which was put in the fixed deposit with Grindlays Bank. The said forest land has admittedly been surrendered by the husband to the Government in order to save his other property from the Ceilings Act. 6. Now the only income from this fixed deposit of Rs. 22,000/- was the interest received from bank. It was Rs. 990/- per year. This income could hardly be enough to support her. It was, therefore, not surprising that the wife had to withdraw the amount from the fixed deposit in order to meet her expenses of maintenance. 7. Miss Kamlesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, contends hat the trial court was not justified in taking into consideration the fixed deposit of R3, 22,000/- and holding that this amount was sufficient for the maintenance and for meeting the expenses of the proceedings. She submits that since the wife had no independent income of her own. She is entitled to maintenance pending litigation and for expenses of the proceedings. Bakshi Sita Ram, learned counsel for the husband-respondent, submits that since the wife has not been able to explain as to what she did with Rs. She submits that since the wife had no independent income of her own. She is entitled to maintenance pending litigation and for expenses of the proceedings. Bakshi Sita Ram, learned counsel for the husband-respondent, submits that since the wife has not been able to explain as to what she did with Rs. 22,000/- taken out by her from her fixed deposit account, she was not entitled to maintenance. 8. Now section 24 provides for maintenance pendente-lite and expenses of proceedings. It is in the following words: "24. 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 wife or the husband, order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceedings, and monthly during the proceeding such as, having regard to the petitioners own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the court to be reasonable." 9. It will be noticed that what a petitioner has to prove is the insufficiency of independent "income." The court is required to take into consideration the "income" of the parties before deciding the quantum of maintenance and expenses of the proceedings. 10. According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary word income means : "periodical (usu annual) receipts from ones business, lands, work, investments, etc.," Websters Dictionary defines income thus : "a gain or recurrent benefit i.e. usually measured in money and for a given period of time derives from capital, labour or a combination of both, includes gains from transactions in capital assets/ It is thus obvious that the word income does not include property of any other kind. I am fortified in this conclusion from the very next section 25 which provides for permanent alimony and maintenance. It enjoins on the court to take into consideration each partys "income and other property." The difference in phraseology in the two consecutive sections shows that the legislature knew the difference between income and "other property". Whereas it wanted the courts to consider only the "income" while deciding questions under section 24, it directed the courts to consider "income" as well as "other property" for deciding permanent alimony and maintenance. Whereas it wanted the courts to consider only the "income" while deciding questions under section 24, it directed the courts to consider "income" as well as "other property" for deciding permanent alimony and maintenance. In other words the legislature did not expect a party to dispose of the property for maintenance pending litigation and for meeting expenses of proceedings. 11. The first thing, therefore, to be enquired under section 24 is whether the petitioner has any independent income. Only if the petitioner is found to have an income the enquiry proceeds further to find out if that income is sufficient for the maintenance of the petitioner and the necessary expenses of the proceedings. Where the income is found sufficient, the application must be dismissed. In case the petitioner has no income or the income is not sufficient, the court must proceed further to fix the amount which the petitioner is entitled to receive for maintenance and expenses of the proceedings. For this purpose the court is required to take into consideration the income of the petitioner as well as that of the respondent. 12. The trial court after reproducing the statements of the parties in extenso but without analysing the same or giving any reason disposed of the question about the income of the wife by observing "From the appreciation of the statements of the parties, I am convinced that the petitioner has sufficient income to maintain herself during the pendency of the main petition and to meet the expenses of litigation for the reasons that she has not explained logically and by convincing evidence that she had spent the entire amount deposited in the fixed deposit in the bank on her illness and on purchasing the utensils etc". 13. It is obvious that the trial court fell into the error of treating the fixed deposit of the wife as her income. Another factor which seems to have weighed with the learned trial Judge is that he found the husband already heavily burdened with financial responsibilities of paying taxes etc. He did not proceed to determine the income of the respondent. 14. As I have come to the conclusion that the petitioner had no independent income except that of Rs. 990/- per annum which is not sufficient for her maintenance and for meeting the expenses of the proceedings, I have now to determine the income of the respondent. He did not proceed to determine the income of the respondent. 14. As I have come to the conclusion that the petitioner had no independent income except that of Rs. 990/- per annum which is not sufficient for her maintenance and for meeting the expenses of the proceedings, I have now to determine the income of the respondent. It is not the gross-income which has to be taken into consideration. The husband is entitled to deduct the taxes etc. which he must pay. However, no deduction can be allowed in respect of running the household. 15. The husband respondent was receiving Rs. 40,000/- per annum an privy-purse. After its abolition, he was paid consolidated amount of Rs. 2,65,000/. Tue respondent has admitted monthly income of Rs. 3,175/-from various sources. In addition to it, he wa9 entitled to rents from 3 or 4 dharas. He owns an orchard at Bhalog which has got 1,400 apple trees. He would have us believe that he gets no income from that orchard, which, according to him, is a liability. He also admits that he has got a plum orchard at Junga proper but he does not tell us about the income derived from it. He, however, tells us that he pays Rs. 6,030/- per year as taxes. Apparently the monthly income of the respondent cannot be less than Rs. 4,000/- in all. The respondent admits that he is not liable to any income tax etc., though he pays some municipal taxes. 16. For the purpose of fixing the monthly allowance for the wife, I have to take into consideration the standard of living of the parties. This standard is best deduced from the statement of the husband himself. He spends about Rs. 300/-per month per person for messing. He employs four permanent servants and sometimes persons are employed on daily wages also. He maintains a jeep as well as a car. 17. It is true that the respondent has to look after his widowed mother. But then she is admittedly getting Rs. 400/- as political pension. He admits that he has 40 bighas of land under plough and fro n its yield he meets the expenses of his house-hold kitchen. 18. Keeping in view the income of the respondent, the status of the parties and the standard of their living, Rs. But then she is admittedly getting Rs. 400/- as political pension. He admits that he has 40 bighas of land under plough and fro n its yield he meets the expenses of his house-hold kitchen. 18. Keeping in view the income of the respondent, the status of the parties and the standard of their living, Rs. 800/- per month appears to be a reasonable amount for the maintenance of the petitioner pending the litigation. A sum of Rs. 1,000/- seems to be a reasonable amount for the expenses of the litigation. I direct that the maintenance allowance be paid with effect from 1st January, 1977. -