JUDGMENT 1. - As all these petitions arise out of one Order between the same parties therefore they were heard together and are being decided together. 2. This revision petition arises out of an order made under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short the Act hereinafter), by the District Judge, Sirohi. According to the revision-petitioner wife she was married to the non-petitioner on Feb. 7, 1987. She left for her parent's place at Bangalore on Mar. 5, 1988. A child was born to her on July 9, 1988. In the year 1989, the husband filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Act. After service of notice of that case application under Section 24 of the Act for interim maintenance and litigation expenses was made, which was allowed on Jan. 9, 1991. According to the petitioner-wife, these expenses were not paid and when the arrears swell up to Rs. 4000/-, the husband withdrew the petition under Section 9 of the Act and thus avoided payment of maintenance. The wife thereupon, filed an application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code in a Court at Bangalore on Nov. 4, 1991. On Nov. 28, 1992 an Order was made directing Rs. 500/- p.m. to be paid as maintenance further and Rs. 300/- p.m. for the child. According to the petitioner this order is still in force and substantial amount is in arrears. In this background on May 17, 1993, the divorce petition was filed by the husband from which the present Case arises. On Aug. 30. 1993. an application under Section 24 of the Act was filed by the petitioner-wife and on Aug 31, 1995 the impugned order was passed. The learned District Judge awarded a sum of Rs. 800/- p.m. as maintenance for the wife from which a sum of Rs. 500/-awarded under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code would be adjustable. The learned District Judge also directed Rs. 900/- to be paid as expenses and also directed that whenever the wife was required to attend the Court at Sirohi and had to travel from Bangalore, she would be paid Rs. 700/- on each such occasion. The, amount of maintenance was to be paid from, July 1, 1995 onwards. The petitioner-wife aggrieved by the said order has filed this revision petition. 700/- on each such occasion. The, amount of maintenance was to be paid from, July 1, 1995 onwards. The petitioner-wife aggrieved by the said order has filed this revision petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner-wife, submitted that the distance between Sirohi and Bangalore is 2000 KM and the petitioner had to travel that distance with her child and an escort. The petitioner also submits that.there is no basis on which the petitioner has been deprived of maintenance from the date of the application at least and she has been, without any basis, deprived of the maintenance for about two years. It was also contended that the amount of interim maintenance was also inadequate and improper looking to the need of the petitioner and the means of the non-petitioner. The petitioner pointed out that the non-petitioner was an employee of the Life Insurance Corporation of India and some of his Income Tax Returns are on record. On behalf of the non-petitioner, the learned counsel opposed the prayer and contended that the petitioner had sufficient means to support herself and she was running a business in Bangalore. He also tried to show that the income of the non-petitioner was not all that which the petitioner was showing. 3. In the limited scope of the revisional jurisdiction, what is to be seen is whether the learned District Judge has committed any, material irregularity in exercise of his jurisdiction to fix interim maintenance and the amount of expenses. 4. The first thing which stares in the face is the date from which the maintenance was awarded. Looking to the background of the case, in which amount of maintenance awarded by the Court earlier was also said to be in arrears, there was no reason why the petitioner could be deprived of maintenance in this case from the date from which the maintenance is usually granted by the Court. The learned District Judge has not given any reason whatsoever, for depriving the petitioner of maintenance from Aug. 30.1993, the date of filing of the application under Section 34 of the Act. As to how and why July 1, 1995 was chosen to be the date from which the maintenance would be awarded is also not known from the order. The learned District Judge has not given any reason whatsoever, for depriving the petitioner of maintenance from Aug. 30.1993, the date of filing of the application under Section 34 of the Act. As to how and why July 1, 1995 was chosen to be the date from which the maintenance would be awarded is also not known from the order. So far as the question of reasonableness of the rate at which the maintenance could be payable and the amount of expenses, the Court had to consider mainly two things viz. (i) the need of the petitioner and (ii) the paying capacity of the non-petitioner. Actually, the learned District Judge has recorded no independent finding at all or this vital point, he has only enumerated the rival contentions and then passed the order that considering the circumstances of the case, in the discretion of the Court the maintenance was being granted. Neither, the need of the petitioner is discussed nor the means of the non-petitioner are discussed in the order. However, a finding is recorded that the petitioner had no independent income or source of income. The learned District Judge has therefore committed a material irregularity in exercising jurisdiction vested in it. On merits of the case, what I find is that the petitioner is stationed at Bangalore which is about 2000 KM away from Sirohi. She has to engage a counsel and arrange for attending the Court on various dates in Sirohi. On a reasonable assessment, she will at least be entitled to a sum of Rs. 5000/-'on this count. Granting of Rs. 900/- by the District Court for defending a divorce suit is not only inadequate but absurd. For attending various dates in this case, the non-petitioner will have to come to Sirohi from Bangalore accompanied by her daughter and one escort. This will involve an expenditure of at least Rs. 2000/- per trip. So far as the amount for maintenance is concerned, the petitioner has Already been awarded Rs. 500/- PM under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code This amount would not be enough for her maintenance. She is the wife of a person who is an Income-tax payer. According to non-petitioner's own income-tax returns, his gross total income is over a lac. The wife is also entitled to live at the same.standard at which her husband is living. She is the wife of a person who is an Income-tax payer. According to non-petitioner's own income-tax returns, his gross total income is over a lac. The wife is also entitled to live at the same.standard at which her husband is living. Looking to the status and station in life of the pay a sum of Rs. 2000/- PM at least deserves to be granted to the petitioner. Of course, the amount awarded under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code would be adjusted from this amount. In the result Revision Petition No. 722/95 is allowed. The impugned order is modified. The non-petitioner shall pay Rs. 5000/- towards expenses of litigation, within one month from today. He shall pay a sum of Rs. 2000/- PM from Aug. 30, 1993 onwards till the disposal of the divorce suit to the petitioner. The arrears shall be paid within four months and the current maintenance shall be paid before 15th of every month by a Demand Draft in the name of the petitioner payable at Bangalore, either to be sent by Registered Post to the petitioner at Bangalore address or handed over to her counsel at Sirohi. The amount Already paid to her in this regard shall be adjusted in this case towards the arrears of maintenance calculated. If the amount of maintenance is not paid in accordance with this Order the trial Court shall stay the proceedings till this Order is complied with. The amount of travelling expenses under this Order shall have to be deposited a month in advance of the date. The revision petition is allowed with costs which is quantified at Rs. 2000/- payable to the petitioner. Accordingly, Civil Misc. Application No. 310/95 is cross allowed and Civil Cross-Objection Petition is dismissed.Order accordingly. *******