JUDGMENT 1. - These two revisions arise out of the same order of the learned District Judge, Pali, dated 11-7-1984 by which he has awarded a monthly sum of Rs. 150/- by way of maintenance to Smt. Shobha under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter called the Act). Both the parties are aggrieved of this order. Revision No. 312/84 has been filed by Smt. Shobha challenging this order on the ground that the meagre amount of Rs. 150/- has been fixed without affording an opportunity to the petitioner Smt. Shobba to cross-examine the non-petitioner Shri Dharmi Chand on the affidavit filed by him. She prays that this order may be quashed and appropriate order in favour of the petitioner may be passed allowing her application under section 24 of the Act in full. On the other hand, revision No. 425/84 has been filed by Shri Dharmi Chand alleging that the court has fixed an excessive amount of monthly maintenance inasmuch as the petitioner Dharmi Chand in this case gets only Rs. 400/- p.m, as salary from a private shop where he works. He prays that the maintenance may be reduced to Rs. 70/- P.M. Challenge has also been thrown on the amount of Rs. 300/- by way of expenses awarded by the trial court. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. The application for divorce had been filed by Shri Dharmi Chand against his wife Smt. Shobha on the ground of adultery, on 16-8-1982, Smt. Shobha was served by substituted service and appeared before the court on 17-2-83 through a counsel. On 7-3-83 the counsel for Smt. Shobha was supplied with the copy of the petition and on that day, she also moved an application for grant of expenses to contest the application. On 12-9-83, an application under Section 24 of the Act was filed by Smt. Shobha and a reply to this was filed by the petitioner Dharmi Chand on 27-1-84. Both the parties filed their affidavits in support of their application and reply under Section 24 of the Act. An application was also filed on behalf of Smt. Shobha praying that she may be allowed to file the written statement only after the application for grant of expenses etc was disposed of. Both the parties filed their affidavits in support of their application and reply under Section 24 of the Act. An application was also filed on behalf of Smt. Shobha praying that she may be allowed to file the written statement only after the application for grant of expenses etc was disposed of. On 18-5-84 an application was moved on behalf of Smt. Shobha under Order 19 Rule 2 Civil Procedure Code praying for grant of permission to cross-examine Shri Dharmi Chand on the affidavit filed by him in support of the reply to the application under Section 24 of the Act. These matters came up for hearing before the learned District Judge on 11-7-84 and by his order on that day, he opined that it was not proper for the defendant to wait for the disposal of the application under Section 24 of the Act before filing her reply to the main application. So far as the application under Order 19 Rule 2 Civil Procedure Code was concerned, the learned District Judge rejected the same, holding that the courts should not encourage cross- examination on the affidavits in miscellaneous matters and he was further of the opinion that Smt. Shobha was trying to delay the proceedings by making one application or the other from time to time and, therefore, the application under Order 19 Rule 2 Civil Procedure Code did not appear to him to be bona fide. On the merits of the application under Section 24, he was of the opinion that the income of the father of the applicant Dharmi Chand was not relevant and looking to all the circumstances of the case, he thought a sum of Rs. 150/- by way of monthly allowance was reasonable to be awarded to Smt. Shohha from the date of the application i.e. 12-9.83 and he also awarded a sum of Rs. 300/- by way of expenses to her. 4. As already stated above, both the parties are aggrieved by this order. 5. Sri Kewal Chand appearing for Smt. Shobha has filed an application today for direction to the non-petitioner Dharmi Chand to pay the interim maintenance and also an amount to meet the expenses to defend these proceedings before this Court. It was, however. stated by Shri Jain appearing for Shri Dharmi Chand that the interim maintenance already granted is heing regularly paid. It was, however. stated by Shri Jain appearing for Shri Dharmi Chand that the interim maintenance already granted is heing regularly paid. Looking to all these circumstances, the learned counsel Shri Kewal Chand did not press the application even for the grant of expenses of the present revision. The application is, therefore, rejected 6. Coming to the merits of the matter, Mr. Kewal Chand urged that there was a real dispute about the income of the husband Shri Dharmi Chand because according to Smt. Shobha, he was running his own joint family business and was earning Rs. 40,000/- or Rs. 50,000/- per year where as Dharmi Chand has denied these facts and has alleged that he was only serving with a private firm and was earaing Rs. 400/- p.m. by way of salary. The learned District Judge, according to Mr. Kewal Chand has not taken this divergence into consideration nor he has examined as to whit the income of the husband was but he arbitrarily awarded a sum of Rs. 150/- only by way of maintenance per month to the wife and in these circumstances, when the wife wanted to cross-examine the husband on the affidavit filed by him in reply to the application under section 24 of the Act, the learned District Judge should not have refused such a prayer merely because according to him, the court should not encourage such cross-examination in miscellaneous matters. He also urged that the learned District Judge was wrong in observing that the application under Order 19 Rule 2 C.P.C was not bona fide. He urged that the wife Smt. Shobha was residing at Hyderabad and had to come in order to file her reply to the main application as also the application under Section 24 of the Act, and, therefore, if she made any application for the grant of expenses of maintenance even before filing the written statement, his cannot be said to be mala fide. On the other hand, Shri Jain urged that from the tenor of the learned District Judge, it appears that he accepted the affidavit of the applicant Dharmi Chand regarding his monthly income being Rs. 400 /- only but even then he has awarded an excessive sum of Rs. 150/-. In these circumstances, there was no justification for any cross-examination of the affidavit filed by Dharmi Chand. 400 /- only but even then he has awarded an excessive sum of Rs. 150/-. In these circumstances, there was no justification for any cross-examination of the affidavit filed by Dharmi Chand. He, on the other hand, urges that the revision may be accepted and the amount may be reduced. 7. Mr. Jain also urged that the learned District Judge had rightly refused cross-examination to Smt. Shobha for the reason already stated by him. 8. I have given my careful consideration to the rival contentions. For the grant of maintenance under Section 24 of the Act, apart from other things, the income of the husband is one of the very material consideration. In this case, the wife had alleged that the husband was running his own business and was earning Rs. 40,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- per year whereas the husband had denied these facts and had alleged that he was only serving with a private firm earning Rs. 400/- p.m. Thus there was a big gap between the income of the husband alleged by the wife and stated by the husband and in these circumstances, in order to arrive at a correct decision about the income of the husband, the cross-examination of the husband on the affidavit filed by him, appears to be necessary. The learned District Judge has declined to do so on the ground that such a course should be discouraged in miscellaneous petition and that the prayer for cross-examination was not bona fide but I do not find force in either, of these two grounds. When there was such a divergence, there was no ground for refusing cross-examination on the affidavit merely on the ground that such a course should be discouraged. On the other hand, this court has been allowing the cross- examination of affidavits in proceedings under Section 24 of the Act as would be clear from Bhanwarlal v. Smt. Kamla Devi, 1981 R.L.W. 464 . The other ground that the application was not bona fide also cannot be accepted because it does not appear that as a matter of fact, the wife was trying to prolong the proceedings. The other ground that the application was not bona fide also cannot be accepted because it does not appear that as a matter of fact, the wife was trying to prolong the proceedings. What she was trying to do was to arrange for the expenses which were payable to her under section 24 of the Act in order to contest the application filed by the husband for divorce against her and if with that intention, she made applications from time to time, even before filing her reply, she cannot be held guilty of any mala fides. In these circumstances, it is clear that the learned District Judge was wrong in refusing the cross-examination of the husband on the affidavit filed by him in support of his reply to the application under Section 24 of the Act. That being so, the inevitable conclusion is that the figure of the maintenance arrived at by the learned District Judge is not after proper enquiry. It will not be out of place to mention here that even according to the husband Daarmi Chand, the figure arrived at by the learned District Judge is arbitrary and in these circumstances, it would be just and proper and in the interest of justice to set aside this order and send the case back to the learned District Judge with a direction to allow Smt. Shobha to cross-examine Shri Dharmi Chand on the affidavit filed by him in support of his reply to the application under Section 24 of the Act and thereafter to dispose of the application in accordance with law. 9. I am informed by Mr. Jain that the case is fixed before the learned District Judge on 25-1-86. On that day, Shri Dharmi Chand shall appear before that court for cross-examination. The learned District Judge will dispose of the application under Section 24 of the Act as expeditiously as possible after the aforesaid cross-examination. As a matter of fact, the main petition under Section 13 itself has become more than three years old and should be disposed of expeditiously.Revision allowed. *******