Judgment :- 1. A husband approached the Sub Court, Trichur, under S 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 praying for restitution of conjugal rights with his wife. According to him, she had left the matrimonial home in June, 1978 and had been living with her parents ever thereafter. The wife defended her action by pointing out a persistent cruelty meted out to her. After getting drunk, the husband used to manhandle her and subject her to cruelty, mental as well as physical. There was a serious risk to her life in living together. 2. During the pendency of the main petition the wife filed IA. No. 230 and 231 of 1982 for allowing maintenance to her and her three minor children. Litigation expenses were also claimed. 3. The court below passed a decree for restitution. On the interim application, the court below directed the husband to pay Rs. 200/- per month to the wife and children, from 1-3-1982 and Rs. 250/- as litigation expenses. 4. The decree is appealed against by the wife. 5. The husband had defaulted in complying with the direction of the court below relating to the payment of maintenance and litigation expenses. The wife was therefore constrained to move CMP. No. 19257 of 1982 for a direction for payment of those amounts. By order dated 8-10-1982, the husband was directed by this Court to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,000/-. The default in the payment continued even thereafter. On 21-7-1982, an order was passed directing further to pay an amount of Rs. 1,000/-. There was no compliance with that order either. 6. This has necessitated a fresh petition CMP. No. 2304 of 1984. Though that petition was ordered casting an obligation in the payment of the amounts by the husband as early as 21-7-1983, the amount directed to be deposited therein could be drawn by the wife (for herself and her children) only on 12-4-1984. 7. The appeal of the year 1982 remains undisposed of. The present petition C. M. P. 16181 of 1984 was filed on 20-6-1984 by the wife. Even on the basis of the quantum of maintenance awarded in the year 1982, a balance amount of Rs. 3450/- remains unpaid. The wife has alleged that the husband's monthly income would not be less than Rs. 1,500/- per month, he being engaged in what is described as a 'flourishing trade in groceries'. Even on the basis of the quantum of maintenance awarded in the year 1982, a balance amount of Rs. 3450/- remains unpaid. The wife has alleged that the husband's monthly income would not be less than Rs. 1,500/- per month, he being engaged in what is described as a 'flourishing trade in groceries'. There is an allegation that the husband has entered into a second marriage, and that the wife has taken up the matter by a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of the I Class, Kunnamkulam, where it is registered as C.C. No. 14 of 1984. It is stated by the wife that the maintenance awarded is grossly inadequate and has to be enhanced to at least Rs. 400/-per month. She prays for a direction for payment of the litigation expenses and maintenance during the pendency of the appeal. 8. No counter has been filed to the above application. Arguments were heard in the matter. 9. A question whether S.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 would permit an appellate court to award maintenance during the pendency of the appeal was raised. It is necessary to consider the matter at the outset. 10. S 24. of the Act reads as follows: "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 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." (emphasis supplied) The terms 'proceeding' and 'court' are not defined in the section. Those terms, would, having regard to the object of the enactment and the setting in which they are employed, take in respectively the appeal and the appellate court. That a petition for interim maintenance could be filed in the appellate court was the view taken by the Rajasthan High Court in Mukan Kanwar v. Ajit Chand. AIR 1961 Rajasthan 51. A very recent decision of the Himachal Pradesh High Court adopting that view is seen reported as Smt. Sarve Devi v. Lashkari, AIR. 1984 NOC.138 (Him. Pra.). That a petition for interim maintenance could be filed in the appellate court was the view taken by the Rajasthan High Court in Mukan Kanwar v. Ajit Chand. AIR 1961 Rajasthan 51. A very recent decision of the Himachal Pradesh High Court adopting that view is seen reported as Smt. Sarve Devi v. Lashkari, AIR. 1984 NOC.138 (Him. Pra.). This court has granted interim maintenance during the pendency of appeal before this Court (vide order of Paripoornan, J. in CMP 5939 of 1984 in MFA. No. 652 of 1983: 1934 KLT 790) I hold that S.24 would permit the appellate Court to award maintenance to a wife or minor children during the pendency of the appeal from an order in proceedings initiated under the Act. 11.The only further question is about the quantum of maintenance and litigation expenses. The amount awarded in 1982 has necessarily to undergo an upward revision having regard to the passage of time and the inflationary trend during the period. The children, two years older now, would also require a larger amount by way of maintenance. Taking all aspects into consideration I direct a sum of Rs. 300/- per month to be paid from the 1st of July 1984. I direct the respondent to pay Rs. 750/-by way of litigation expenses. If the entire arrears together with litigation expenses are not paid within a month from today, the petitioner-wife would be entitled to take appropriate legal steps for recovery of the same. 12. The appeal would be posted for hearing in October, 1984.