JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS revision petition is directed against an order dated 20-11-1987, passed by the Ist Additional District Judge, Mandsaur, in Hindu Marriage Case No. 36 of 1987, thereby awarding Rs. 300/- as maintenance allowance and Rs. 500/- as legal expenses to the respondent-husband, on his application under Section 24 of the Hindu marriage Act (for short, the Act ). ( 2. ) BEFORE dealing with the submissions made by the learned counsel, it would be necessary to note certain facts. The petitioner Mandakini, who is serving as a Nurse, had filed a suit for divorce. The trial Court, instead of granting a decree for divorce, passed a decree for judicial separation under Section 10 of the Act on 29-7-1985. She made an application under Section 13 of the Act, praying for a divorce decree on the ground that there had been no resumption of cohabitation as between the parties for a period of more than one year after passing of a decree for judicial separation on 29-7-1985. Respondent-husband while admitting the fact that a decree for judicial separation was passed on 29-7-1985, denied that there had been no resumption of cohabitation and contended that he had been frequenting the petitioner and at times living with her and leading a matrimonial life. He also made an application under section 24 of the Act stating that he was unemployed, having no source of income and depending on the help rendered by his friends and relations. He also alleged that the petitioner, who was serving as a Nurse, was earning Rs. 1200/ per month and she should be ordered to pay the maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 600/- per month and Rs. 1000/- as legal expenses. This prayer was opposed by the petitioner, who alleged that the respondent was a drunkard, he was able to maintain himself and was in fact serving with a Catering Contractor on, the Western Railways. ( 3. ) THE trial Court by the impugned order awarded Rs. 300/- per month as maintenance allowance and Rs. 500/- as legal expenses to the respondent-husband. It is against this order that the wife has preferred this petition. ( 4. ( 3. ) THE trial Court by the impugned order awarded Rs. 300/- per month as maintenance allowance and Rs. 500/- as legal expenses to the respondent-husband. It is against this order that the wife has preferred this petition. ( 4. ) SHRIMATI Gore, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the application was not in accordance with rules, particularly Rule 4 of the Rules framed under the Act by this Court and as such, the application was not maintainable. It was also submitted that by his conduct and character the respondent had disentitled himself to any such maintenance, inasmuch as he indulged in drinking and abusing the petitioner, and awarding maintenance allowance to such a person was an abuse of the powers conferred on the Court under Section 24 of the Act, which according to the petitioner was intended to help only such husbands, who were either diseased or disabled or otherwise unable to maintain themselves. It was also urged that the learned judge should have held a full-fledged inquiry, meaning thereby recording of evidence, before passing such an order. Evidence has in fact been recorded in this case. ( 5. ) SHRI Ratadia, learned counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand supported the order and submitted that in view of the reply filed by the petitioner, the order is fully justified. ( 6. ) SO far as the question of recording of evidence while holding an inquiry on an application under Section 24 of the Act is concerned, suffice it to say that the law does not require a regular trial or recording of evidence, though in some cases it may be necessary to record evidence, but it depends on the facts of each case. Evidence has been recorded in this case. ( 7. ) SO far as the petitioners objection as regards non-compliance of Rule 4 of the rules is concerned, there is substance and force in the argument advanced by the petitioners counsel. Evidence has been recorded in this case. ( 7. ) SO far as the petitioners objection as regards non-compliance of Rule 4 of the rules is concerned, there is substance and force in the argument advanced by the petitioners counsel. Rule 4 of the Rules reads as follows : - "r. 4 - Every application for alimony and maintenance shall be supported by an affidavit made by the applicant and shall state the average monthly incomes of the petitioner and the respondent, the source of these incomes, particulars of other movable and immovable property owned by them, the number of dependents on the petitioner and the respondent, and the names and ages of such dependents. ". This rule should be read along with Section 24 of the Act. Section 24 of the Act provides that when it appears to the Court that either the wife or the husband has no independent income to support, the Court can order the respondent to pay the petitioner maintenance pendente lite and also expenses of the proceedings. A mere reading of the Rule would show that every application for alimony and maintenance is required to be supported by an affidavit. The object of supporting the application by an affidavit is obvious. It is with a view to enable the court to make it appear that passing of an order under Section 24 of the Act is necessary. As the inquiry contemplated under Section 24 of the Act does not always include recording of evidence, hence the rule provides a safeguard by laying down the necessity of supporting the application by an affidavit. It is this affidavit in support of the application, which enables the Court to pass an order on an application made under section 24 of the Act. In the instant case such an affidavit has not been filed along with the application. This non-filing of an affidavit, which is otherwise essential, would not make any material difference in the instant case in view of the fact that the parties entered the witness box and adduced evidence in support of their respective claims and contentions. ( 8. ) THE word used in the Rule is that every application for alimony shall be supported by an affidavit. ( 8. ) THE word used in the Rule is that every application for alimony shall be supported by an affidavit. The word shall is mandatory in form and in the instant case, filing of such an affidavit was all the more necessary because there was lack of proper pleadings on the part of both the parties, but parties having adduced evidence on the point, non-compliance of the rule loses much of its significance. ( 9. ) IT was, pointed out by Shri Ratadia, learned counsel for the respondent that evidence was recorded by the trial Court. Both the parties examined themselves as witnesses, but the evidence on record is too scant and sketchy to sustain the impugned order, ( 10. ) IT cannot be disputed that it is within the discretion of the Court to pass an order under Section 24 of the Act and it is also necessary that the discretion must be exercised in accordance with the well established judicial principles. It cannot also be disputed that maintenance pendente lite can be awarded to a husband, but while warding the maintenance to a husband, the Court must exercise its discretion taking into account all the facts and surrounding circumstances of the case. Maintenance pendente lite cannot be claimed as a matter of right by any husband. ( 11. ) FACTS as emerging in this ease go to show that the respondent-husband, notwithstanding his denial of being in service with a catering contractor on the western Railways, is certainly capable of maintaining himself. He does not suffer from my physical disability or disease so as to claim maintenance from his wife during the pendency of the proceedings. As has been averred by him in support of his contention that he had been maintaining marital relations with the petitioner and had been frequenting his wife for the purpose, who is posted at a different station from other than the place of service of the husband for coming to the Court in connection with the Court proceedings, he claims expenses from his wife and for maintaining the marital relations he does not have to depend upon his wife. He claims to be dependent on the charity of his friends and relations. There is inconsistency in his averments. He claims to be dependent on the charity of his friends and relations. There is inconsistency in his averments. Although it is also true that the petitioner has not specifically traversed the allegations made by the respondent in his application under Section 24 of the Act. But in such cases strict rules of pleadings should not be over-stretched and the Court should look to all the surrounding circumstances while exercising its discretion under Section 24 of the Act. It is not to suggest that a husband can never claim maintenance under Section 24 of the Act, but whenever such a claim is advanced, the Court should consider whether the respondent-husband is incapable of maintaining himself for any justifiable reason or whether such a claim is advanced merely with a view to extract money from his wife. As is evident from the record, the respondent-husband does not suffer from any physical disability. He is hale and hearty, able to work and earn his livelihood, which in fact he was earning, as deposed to by his wife, the petitioner, as a bearer in the Western Railways at Shamgarh. There is no cross-examination on this point, except confronting the petitioner with the title of her application under section 13 of the Act, wherein the respondent is shown to have no vocation or business. Such titles are not to be construed as pleadings. The respondent in his evidence boldly stated that he was not doing any business, but he denied that he was not a servant in the railway-catering service. This denial is evasive, may be that he was not in the railway catering service or may be a servant of a cetering contractor running a canteen at Shamgarh railway station. What emerges from his evidence is that he is a parssite on his own showing and choice on the charity of his friends and relations. If such a person were to be awarded maintenance, it cannot be said to be a proper exercise of discretion by the court under Section 24 of the Act. It cannot be disputed that the burden was on the respondent-husband to make out a case for exercise of the Courts discretion in his favour. If such a person were to be awarded maintenance, it cannot be said to be a proper exercise of discretion by the court under Section 24 of the Act. It cannot be disputed that the burden was on the respondent-husband to make out a case for exercise of the Courts discretion in his favour. 11-A Section 36 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, Section 39 of the Parsi marriage and Divorce Act, 1936 and Section 36 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 provide for alimony pendente lite, but under all these Acts, a husband is not entitled to claim alimony pendente lite from his wife :- "section 36 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, provides for interim orders to be made by the Court during the pendency of proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights, judicial separation, nullity of void or voidable marriage and divorce. Such orders can be made for payment of the expenses of the proceedings by the husband to the wife and alimony by weekly or monthly payments where the wife has no independent income sufficient for her support. " Under the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936 it is only the wife with no independent income sufficient for her support and necessary expenses who is entitled and the Court may order the husband to pay her monthly alimony. Under the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, it is wife alone, who may present a petition for alimony pending the suit. ( 12. ) IT is within the discretion of the Court to make an order for maintenance allowance during pendency of the suit and this discretion is to be exercised on fulfilment of the following conditions : (i) that the wife or husband, as the case may be, has no independent income for his or her support and necessary expenses of the proceedings, and (ii) Consideration of the income of the other spouse while making such an order. ( 13. ) IN the instant case, as the evidence shows, it is not that the husband has no independent income. As noted above, his denial regarding his service with a catering contractor, is evasive. There is absolutely nothing on record to suggest that the income earned by the respondent is in any manner insufficient for his support and the necessary expenses of the proceedings. As noted above, his denial regarding his service with a catering contractor, is evasive. There is absolutely nothing on record to suggest that the income earned by the respondent is in any manner insufficient for his support and the necessary expenses of the proceedings. It need not be emphasised that the purpose of the Section 24 of the Act is to enable a financially weak party to litigate his or her rights in a matrimonial cause. Section 24 thus embodies in itself a very wholesome principle which is conducive to rule of law. It contemplates that none of the parties to a matrimonial cause should be able to take undue advantage of his financial superiority to defeat the rightful claim of the weaker party. It should also be noted that the proceedings have the limited purpose of enabling the weaker party to substantiate his or her rights during the pendency of the proceedings. ( 14. ) FOR the foregoing reasons, this revision petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order is set aside. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.