Judgment :- 1. These two revisions arises from out of a proceeding under S.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 2. The petitioner in C.R.P. 2094/87 is the husband of the petitioner in C.R.P. 183/88. The husband filed an application under S.13(1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, for divorce. The wife in her turn has moved the application under S.24 Hindu Marriage Act for maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings. 3. The court below by the order under challenge in C.R.P. 183/88 has disallowed the maintenance pendente lite entering the finding that the wife has independent income sufficient for her support. However by the order under challenge in C.R.P.2094/87 the court below has allowed the litigation expenses prayed for by the wife to the extent of Rs.4,000/-. 4. On going through the order under challenge in C.R.P. 183/88, I am of the view that there is little scope to interfere with the same because the same is based on materials placed by the parties before the court. The said petition therefore is dismissed. 5. The question arising for consideration in C.R.P.2094/87 is this: was the court below, having found that the wife is not entitled to maintenance pendente lite, justified in awarding the expenses of proceedings. The answer depends upon the construction of S.24 of The Hindu Marriage Act. 6. S.24 reads: "Section 24:- Maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings:- Wherein 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." This section makes it clear that no amount as maintenance or expenses of proceedings requires to be paid either to the wife or to the husband as the case may be where he or she has sufficient income for her or his support. The object in enacting the section discernible from the plain words used therein, is to provide the financially weaker party with the requisite fund to meet his or her maintenance and expenses pendente lite. These two claims are so intrinsically connected as to say that the claim for maintenance cannot be separated from the claim for litigation expenses. The condition, which is a condition precedent and which should be established for awarding maintenance and litigation expenses is the insufficiency of income of the claimant to support oneself. It therefore follows, when once the claim for maintenance is disallowed on the ground that the claimant has sufficient income for her or his support, then it automatically follows that the claimant is not entitled to the litigation expenses. (See Surjit Kaur v. Tirath Singh, A.I.R.1978 P & H 112 and Preeti v. Ravind Kr. Sharma, A.I.R.1979 All.29). 7. Going by this principle, I am of the view that the court below erred in awarding the litigation expenses. The order under challenge in C.R.P.2094/87 accordingly is set aside. For the reasons slated above C.R.P.183/88 is dismissed and C.R.P.2094/87 is allowed. No costs.