JUDGMENT 1. - In assailing the order made on September 3, 1983 by the learned District Judge, Kota, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there was no material on which the learned Court would have come to the conclusion that the non-petitioner, the wife of the petitioner, had no independent income sufficient for her support and for the necessary expenses of the proceedings. Even the affidavit of the non-petitioner had not been filed in support of the application of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short 'the Act'). It appears that an application for divorce under Section 13 of the Act was filed seeking a dissolution of his marriage with the non-petitioner by a decree of divorce. In that application and application under section 24 of the Act for alimony till the disposal of the application under section 13 of the Act was filed. In that application it was stated by the non-petitioner that there is no income of her to support herself and the petitioner. her husband, was earning one lacs per year and was having 50 bighas of agricultural land. She claimed Rs. 500/- per month as alimony and Rs. 400/- expenses of litigation. The application was contested by the non-petitioner and it was denied that the non-petitioner was not having any income of her own to support herself and it was contended that the non-petitioner has 3-4 buffalo and was earning by selling milk. She had also two ass. In support of the application the non-petitioner has not filed any affidavit nor the petitioner filed any affidavit in support of the reply. The learned District Judge held that the petitioner had 13 bighas of agricultural land and four shops. 2. The order of the learned District Judge cannot be sustained. A look at Rule 801 P of the Rajasthan High Court Rules 1952 will show that every application for maintenance pendente lite. permanent alimony and maintenance or for custody, maintenance and education expenses of minor children, shall state the average monthly income of the petitioner and the respondent the source of these incomes, particulars of other movable and immovable property owned by them, then number of dependents on the petitioner and the respondent and the names and ages of such dependents. It is further provided that such an application shall be supported by an affidavit. It is further provided that such an application shall be supported by an affidavit. Thus, the maintenance pendete lite under Section 24 of the Act was not in accordance with the Rule 901 P of the Rajasthan High Court being not supported by an affidavit. In the absence of any affidavit the learned Court could not be satisfied that the non-petitioner, the wife of the petitioner, has no independent income sufficient for her support and further necessary expenses of the proceedings. That apart the learned Judge has not come to a finding as to what was the monthly income of the petitioner. He has simply observed that from the submissions made before him it prima facie appears to him. That the petitioner is a well to do person having 13 bighas of agricultural land and four shops which were on rent and, therefore, he must be earning Rs. 700/- to 800/- p.m. It may be stated that neither the non-petitioner in her application under section 24 of the Act for maintenance pending the disposal of the application under section 13 of the Act mentioned that the petitioner has also four shops which were on rent nor the petitioner said so in his application. 3. Thus, the finding of the learned trial Court that the petitioner was having income of Rs. 700/- or 800/- p.m. and that the non-petitioner was having no independent income of her is perverse. 4. In the result, the revision petition is allowed and the order of the learned District Judge, Kota dated 3-9-83 is set aside and the case is sent back to the trial Court with a direction to decide the application for pendete lite maintenance afresh in accordance with the Law. Cost made easy.Revision allowed. *******