N.C. SHARMA, J.—Smt. Saroj Devi has filed this revision against the order of the Addl. District Judge, Pratapgarh dated May 9,1986 in Civil Misc. Case No. 32/85 of his court. 2. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties appearing in this revision. 3. Facts giving rise to this revision are that the husband Ashok Puri filed a divorce petition No.56/85 against the petitioner Saroj Devi on the ground that the petitioner had deserted him and was living with her lover Ashok Kumar. Charge of Adultery was also levelled against her. The petitioner made an application before the District Judge for alimony pendente like u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and for grant of expenses of litigation The Distt. Judge found that Ashok Puri, non-petitioner was employed as Lower Division Clerk and he was getting a total salary of Rs. 835/- out of which deduction are made of an amount of Rs. 186/- per month and the net amount of salary which he takes to his home per month is Rs. 649/- Applying the well - known rule of l/5th, the District Judge allowed Rs. 130/- as alimony pendente lite to Smt. Saroj Devi and the further allowed an amount of Rs. 300/- to the petitioner for expenses of litigation. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner did not dispute the adequacy of the alimony pendente lite amount allowed by the District Judge and I am also satisfied that when Ashok Puri was getting a net salary of Rs. 649/-per month only, the fixation of the amount of Rs. 130/- per month as alimony pendente lite was quite reasonable. What has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the District Judge was wrong in allowing the alimony pendente lite from the date of his order i.e. from 9th May, 1986 and not from the date on which the petitioner made application u/s 24 of the Act which date was 13th July, 1985. The second contention put forwarded by the learned counsel was that the District Judge has also directed in his order that the petitioner shall give an undertaking that in case the allegations levelled by Ashok Puri regarding the petitioner about leading immoral life are proved, the petitioner shall refund the alimony pendente lite. The second contention put forwarded by the learned counsel was that the District Judge has also directed in his order that the petitioner shall give an undertaking that in case the allegations levelled by Ashok Puri regarding the petitioner about leading immoral life are proved, the petitioner shall refund the alimony pendente lite. It was argued that such directions should not be given by the District Judge on application u/s 24 of the said Act. Last contention urged was that the amount of Rs. 300/- allowed regarding cost of litigation was grossly in-adequate in as much as divorce petition has been filed by the husband in the Court of District Judge at Chittorgarh while the petitioner was living at Udaipur and she has also engaged a counsel of Udaipur to defend her and she and his counsel have to go to Chittorgarh on various dates fixed in the divorce case. Looking to these facts and circumstances, the amount of Rs. 300/- awarded are grossly inadequate. 5. Learned counsel for the non-petitioner contended that there was no error of jurisdiction in the order of District Judge, Pratapgarh, (Camp Chittorgarh) and this Court should not interfere in revision in the order of District Judge. 6. It may be stated that the condition imposed by the District Judge that the petitioner shall have to give an undertaking that she will have to refund the total amount of the alimony pendente lite which she would get in case, it was proved finally that the petitioner was guilty of adultery was wrong. In my opinion, the District Judge could not give such directions while granting to the wife alimony pendente lite. It has been held in the case of Latika Ghosh Vs. Nirmal Kumar Ghosh (1) that if the ground for interim maintenance is made out, court cannot impose any condition on the spouse claiming such maintenance. Thus it is clear that the District Judge has exercised his jurisdiction illegally while imposing the aforesaid condition and such illegality can be set aside in revision. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the alimony pendente lite amount should have been awarded to the petitioner w.e.f. 13th July, 1985 i.e. date on which she made application for the purpose, the contention finds support from the decisions reported in Smt. Sobhana Sen Vs. Amar Kanta Sen (2), N. Subramanyam Vs. Mrs. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the alimony pendente lite amount should have been awarded to the petitioner w.e.f. 13th July, 1985 i.e. date on which she made application for the purpose, the contention finds support from the decisions reported in Smt. Sobhana Sen Vs. Amar Kanta Sen (2), N. Subramanyam Vs. Mrs. M.G. Saraswathi (3), Mrs. Sudarshan Kumari Vs. Chaggar Singh (4) and Bhanwar Lal Vs. Smt. Kamla Devi(5). Even in England, law is that on petition for divorce the Court may make an order for maintenance pending suit that is to say, an order requiring either party to the marriage to make other such periodical payments for his or her maintenance and for such term, being a term beginning not earlier than the date of presentation of the petition and upto the date of determination of the suit as the Court thinks reasonable. In the instant case, the petitioner has claimed the alimony pendente lite from the date she made the application and the District Judge ought to have allowed the alimony pendente lite from the date the petitioner made the application for the said purpose and should not have allowed it from the date he passed the order, which order was passed after 10 months of the making of the application. 7. As regards the cost of litigation, the District Judge has given no reason why he has awarded only Rs. 300/- only to the petitioner. It is not indisputed that the petition for the divorce is being tried at Chittorgarh, while the petitioner is living with her parents at Udaipur. Obviously she has to go to Chittorgarh to attend any various dates in the case. This fact [was completely ignored by the District Judge, in my view, the petitioner should have been awarded an amount of Rs. 1,000/- as litigation expenses to defend the action initiated by the husband Ashok Puri. 8. I, therefore, partly allow this revision, modify the amount of cost of litigation from Rs. 300/- to Rs. 1000/- direct the giving of the amount of alimony pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- as litigation expenses to defend the action initiated by the husband Ashok Puri. 8. I, therefore, partly allow this revision, modify the amount of cost of litigation from Rs. 300/- to Rs. 1000/- direct the giving of the amount of alimony pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 130/- per month by the has band Ashok Puri to the petitioner Saroj Devi w.e.f. 13th July, 1985 and totally quash the last part of the order of the District Judge, Pratapgarh (Camp Chittorgarh) whereby he has imposed the condition on the petitioner to give an undertaking for refund of the alimony pendente lite amount received by her in case ultimately it was proved that she was leading an immoral life.