C. K. PRASAD, J. ( 1 ) THIS is wife's civil revision against the order dated 29-2-1996 passed by the District Judge, Narsinghpur in Civil Suit No. 10-A of 1995 whereby the application filed by her for grant of maintenance pendente lite as also the cost of litigation under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been rejected. ( 2 ) FACTS necessary for the decision of the present civil revision are that the husband-non-applicant filed a petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground that there has been no restitution of conjugal rights between the parties to the marriage for a period of more than one year after passing of a decree of restitution of conjugal right, in a proceeding to which they were parties as contemplated under Section 13 (1-A) (ii) of the Act. It is relevant here to state that on the application filed by the husband under Section 9 of the Act the District Judge, Narsinghpur in Civil Suit No. 29-A/93 has granted the restitution of conjugal rights by its judgment and decree dated 4-2-1994. In the petition filed by the husband for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce, the wife filed an application for grant of maintenance pendente lite as also the cost of litigation. The learned Judge by its order dated 29-2-1996 rejected the said application. According to the finding of the learned District Judge the wife is not entitled for grant of maintenance pendente lite and cost of litigation on the ground that in spite of the decree of restitution of conjugal rights the wife is staying with her parents and has not gone to her matrimonial home. In the application the wife has stated that she has no independent source of earning and she has to maintain herself. She has further stated that she is dependent upon her parents. She has further stated about the income of her husband. ( 3 ) SECTION 24 of the Act contemplates of grant of maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceeding. The same reads as follows :-"24. She has further stated that she is dependent upon her parents. She has further stated about the income of her husband. ( 3 ) SECTION 24 of the Act contemplates of grant of maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceeding. The same reads as follows :-"24. Maintenance, pendente lite and expenses of proceedings.- Where in 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 the petitioner the expenses of 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. "shri Patel appearing in support of the civil revision submits that the moment it is shown to the Court that the wife has no independent income sufficient for her support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, the Court has no option than to order the husband to pay to the wife maintenance pendente lite as also the expenses of the proceeding. He submits that in view of the allegation of the wife that she has no independent income sufficient for her support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, the failure on part of the learned Judge not to grant maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceeding will tantamount to refusal to exercise jurisdiction under Section 24 of the Act. He submits that merely the facts that a decree for restitution of conjugal right is operating against the wife, the same will not deprive her for the grant of maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceeding. ( 4 ) IT is to be borne in mind that section 24 of the Act uses the expression' the Court may ', on the application of the wife or the husband, order the respondent to pay the petitioner the'expenses of the proceedings'and monthly sum as regards to the petitioner's own income and income of the respondent. Shri Patel contends that the learned Judge refused to grant maintenance on the ground that a decree of restitution of conjugal rights is operating against the wife. Shri Patel contends that the learned Judge refused to grant maintenance on the ground that a decree of restitution of conjugal rights is operating against the wife. A reading of the judgment of the learned judge does not show that the maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceeding were denied to the wife on the ground that in such cases it has no jurisdiction, but, the learned Judge found that in view of a decree of restitution of conjugal rights, it is not a fit case for grant of maintenance pendente lite or expenses of proceeding. ( 5 ) SHRI Patel all the time emphasises that although a decree of restitution of conjugal rights is operating against the wife, but in such a situation the trial Judge did not lack jurisdiction. One has to bear in mind the distinction between lack of jurisdiction and refusal to exercise discretion. As stated earlier in the present case, the learned Judge declained to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner. There is no difficulty in accepting the submission of Shri Patel that even in a case in which the decree of restitution of conjugal rights is operating against the wife the Court does not lack jurisdiction to grant maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceeding. Shri Patel then goes a step further and submits that once it is found that the wife has no independent income sufficient for her support the Court has no discretion at all. He submits that the expression may in Section 24 of the Act has to be read as must and once it is held so the Court has no discretion. In support of the aforesaid submission learned counsel has placed reliance on a Judgment of the Orissa High Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra Mishra v. Kanchan Bala Mishra (1986) 2 DMC 362; and my attention has been drawn to the following paragraph of the Judgment :-"it is not in dispute that the opposite party is the wife of the petitioner. This relationship still subsists till the decree of divorce is passed. She has no independent income for her maintenance. Therefore, the pre-requisites for an application under Section 24 of the Act are satisfied. This relationship still subsists till the decree of divorce is passed. She has no independent income for her maintenance. Therefore, the pre-requisites for an application under Section 24 of the Act are satisfied. Once the pre-conditions for an application under Section 24 of the Act are satisfied, the Court has the discretion to direct the petitioner, who is the husband, to pay the opposite party the expenses of the proceeding any monthly maintenance which appears to the Court reasonable taking into consideration the income of the petitioner. Thus, the jurisdiction of the Court to exercise the power is not wanting in this case. "a close reading of the aforesaid Judgment of the Orissa High Court shows that the same, instead of supporting the case of the wife goes against her. As stated earlier there is distinction between lack of jurisdiction and refusal on part of the Court to exercise discretion. In the aforesaid case it has been clearly held that once the pre-conditions for an application under Section 24of the Act are satisfied i. e. the relationship subsists, the Court has the discretion to direct the party to pay the expenses of the proceeding and monthly maintenance. This judgment in no way lays down that once the wife is able to show that she has no independent income sufficient for her support, the Court is bound to grant maintenance. Yet another decision on which the learned counsel placed reliance is the decision of this Court in the case of Dashrath Yadav v. Saroj, 1989 MPLJ 54 : (AIR 1989 Madh Pra 242) and my attention has been drawn to the following paragraph of the said Judgment :-"see Yogeshwar Prasad's case (AIR 1981 Delhi 99) and Smt. Ram Piari's case (AIR 1970 Punjab 341) (supra ). For considering the application for grant of interim maintenance, only independent income of wife can be taken into account or the conduct of the applicant, who claims interim maintenance so as to debar her from getting the interim maintenance. The petitioner has placed nothing before the trial court or before this Court that the respondent has got an independent source of earning except the bare and vague affidavit filed before the trial Court which was not believed by the Trial Court. Nothing against the conduct of the respondent has also been pointed out so as to disentitle her from the interim maintenance. Nothing against the conduct of the respondent has also been pointed out so as to disentitle her from the interim maintenance. While hearing on an application for grant of interim maintenance, the law does not require holding of 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. Moreover, no material was placed by the petitioner before the trial Court so as to suggest that it was necessary to record evidence for proving that the respondent has her own independent source of earning. The trial Court held an enquiry in fact and considered the affidavits and the slips filed by the petitioner with respect to his own income and after considering the same, passed the order, such findings which have been arrived at after appreciation of material on record, cannot be interfered in the revisional jurisdiction. "relying heavily on the aforesaid passage, Shri Patel submits that for considering the application for grant of interim maintenance only independent income of wife can be taken into account. The aforesaid isolated passage from the judgment cannot only be considered for understanding the ratio of the judgment. In the paragraph referred to above itself on which Shri Patel has placed heavy reliance further goes to show that while considering the application for grant of interim maintenance the conduct of the applicant, who claims interim maintenance is also required to be seen. Thus, the aforesaid case in no way holds that once it is found that the wife has no independent income sufficient for her support, the Court has no discretion. The judgment relied on by the learned counsel in no way support the proposition advanced by him and in fact, goes against him. Shri Patel has placed further reliance on a Judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Gangu Pundalik Waghmare v. Pundlik Maroti Waghmare, AIR 1979 Bombay 264 and my attention has been drawn to the following paragraph of the Judgment :"now if these allegations were to be gone into at the time of deciding as to whether the applicant, under Section 24 of the Act, is entitled to payment of maintenance or expenses, it would amount to prejudging the whole issue. It is needless to say that proceedings under Section 24 of the Act are intended to be summary in nature and it would not be appropriate at that stage to decide if the spouse making the application under that section isor is not entitled to the said payment because of the misconduct or commission of marital offence by him or her. No doubt, it is entirely in the discretion of the Court to make or not to make an order under the said section. But that discretion has to be exercised by it on the requirements laid in that section itself and if that section does not prohibit the Court from directing payment of maintenance and expenses on the ground of misconduct, it would not be in keeping with the purpose of the section to refuse to do so merely in exercise of the discretion vested in the Court under that section. In my view, therefore, the learned trial Judge was not right in considering at this stage, when the applicant had not even filed her written statement and had not refuted the allegations made by the non-applicant in his main petition for divorce, if the applicant was pregnant from the non-applicant or from some other person. "in the aforesaid case the Court was considering the allegation made by the husband to deny maintenance pendente lite on the ground of certain matrimonial misconduct. In the background of the aforesaid fact the Bombay High Court found that proceeding under Section 24 of the Act is summary in nature and it was not appropriate at that stage to decide such allegation. This is not the situation here. In the present case, decree of restitution of conjugal rights passed by a Competent Court is operating against the wife and in the order impugned the same is not being adjudicated by the Court. Further in the said case itself the Bombay High Court clearly held that it is entirely in the discretion of the Court to make and not to make an order under Section 24 of the Act. Discretion as always understood is the judicial discretion and not fanciful. Thus, the Judgment relied on by Shri Patel differs, on fact, and so far as the ratio is concerned the same does not support his case at all. Discretion as always understood is the judicial discretion and not fanciful. Thus, the Judgment relied on by Shri Patel differs, on fact, and so far as the ratio is concerned the same does not support his case at all. Shri Patel in support of his submission has relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Gopal v. Chapubai, 1986 MPWN II Note 76; and my attention has been drawn to the following paragraph :"having heard learned counsel for the parties, I have come to the conclusion that this revision petition deserves to be dismissed. It was urged on behalf of the applicant that as the applicant had denied the relationship of a husband and a wife between the parties, the opponent was not entitled to any relief under Section 24 of the Act. The contention cannot be upheld. The grant of maintenance pendente lite is not dependent either on the merits of the petition or on the decision of any particular issue. It was then contended that the application deserved to be dismissed on the ground of undue delay as provided by Section 23 of the Act. This contention is, however, devoid of any merit as Section 24 of the Act is not controlled by Section 23 of the Act. No case, in my opinion, has been made out by the applicant for interfering with the impugned order. Revision dismissed. "i fail to understand how the aforesaid judgment in any way advances the case of the wife for grant of maintenance pendente lite. In this case relief was sought to be resisted on the ground that the relationship of husband and wife was denied and in the aforesaid background the Court held that the grant of maintenance pendente lite does not depend on the decision of any particular issue. Here in the present case, as stated earlier the decree of restitution of conjugal rights had already been granted by a competent civil Court. Thus, the authority relied on is clearly distinguishable. Here in the present case, as stated earlier the decree of restitution of conjugal rights had already been granted by a competent civil Court. Thus, the authority relied on is clearly distinguishable. Another decision on which the learned counsel placed reliance is the judgment of this Court in the case of Nishan Singh v. Bhupendra Kaur, 1985 MPWN Note 318; and my attention has been drawn to the following paragraph :-"there is substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the assertion of the petitioner that the respondent had independent source of income, sufficient to maintain herself, the Court below was bound to record its findings in this regard before making an order under Section 24 of the Act. This having not been done, the impugned order of the Court below is liable to be set aside. "i am of the opinion that the passage referred to above in no way advances the case of the wife. In the present case, the trial Court refused to exercise discretion in favour of the wife on the ground of existence of a decree of restitution of conjugal rights. Accordingly the judgment relied on is of no consequence so far as the present case is concerned. Mr. Patel has drawn my attention to the judgment of this Court in the case of Indira v. Shailendra Kumar Gangele, 1991 MPLJ 832 : (AIR 1992 Madh Pra 72); in support of his submission. In my opinion the decision relied on is absolutely irrelevant for the present case. In the aforesaid cases the question which came for determination before the Court was the date from which the order of payment of maintenance pendente lite can be granted. That is not the question here. ( 6 ) IN the result, I do not find any merit in this revision. It is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost. Petition dismissed. .