JUDGMENT - R.M. LODHA, J.:---Rule. Returnable forthwith. 2.Mr. Sawant, learned Counsel waives service for respondent. 3.By consent, heard finally at this stage. 4.The respondent and the petitioner are husband and wife and for the sake of convenience I shall refer them as husband and wife respectively. The parties got married on 19-5-95 and out of the wedlock, the girl child was born. The matrimonial dispute arose between the husband and wife immediately after the marriage. 5.It is the case of the wife that her ornaments and jewellery were taken by the husband and his parents when she came from her parents place. The husband and his parents also got annoyed when she delivered girl child. The wife claims to have suffered cruelty at the hands of the husband and his parents. The husband filed a petition for dissolution of marriage under section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In the said petition, the wife made an application for maintenance under section 24. In the application, it was stated by her that she has no financial means to maintain herself and their child and therefore, needed interim maintenance from the husband. The husband is finance and marketing executive in some private company and is earning more than Rs. 15,000/- per month. In the application for maintenance wife claimed interim maintenance at the rate of 2000/- for herself and Rs. 2000/- for the minor daughter in addition to the cost of Rs. 5000/- for contesting the matrimonial petition. The application for interim maintenance was contested by the husband. It is the case of the husband that after the petition for dissolution of marriage was filed by him, the wife has been making false allegations and complaints against him, his brother and parents. According to him, presently, he is working with M/s. Total Solution having monthly salary of Rs. 2000/- only. The husband also set up the case that in view of the conduct of the wife, she is not entitled to any maintenance. 6.The Family Court after hearing the parties, by the impugned order dated 29-8-98 has awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per month for the maintenance of minor daughter but did not award any maintenance for wife. 6.The Family Court after hearing the parties, by the impugned order dated 29-8-98 has awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per month for the maintenance of minor daughter but did not award any maintenance for wife. The reason given by the Family Court in rejecting the wife's prayer for interim maintenance is that the wife has refused to join matrimonial home unless the Mira Road flat was transferred by the husband in her name. According to the Family Court, the conduct of the parties could not be lost sight of while considering the application under section 24 and since the wife has refused to join matrimonial home, she is not entitled to any interim maintenance. 7.The reason given by the Family Court in rejecting the prayer made by the wife for interim maintenance is fully fallacious and cannot be sustained. While considering the application for maintenance pendente lite, the only consideration before the Court is inability of the spouse to maintain herself or himself for want of financial means or inadequacy of financial means to maintain at the level of social status of the other spouse from whom interim maintenance is sought and not the misconduct of the applicant spouse because in the matrimonial dispute between spouses, there would always be allegation of matrimonial offence or misconduct. If misconduct of the spouse seeking maintenance pendente lite could be relevant factor, in no proceeding of divorce or dissolution of marriage or judicial separation, the opponent spouse unable to maintain could seek interim maintenance since there could always be allegation of matrimonial misconduct against him or her in such proceeding. This was never and is not legislative intention of section 24. While enacting section 24, the legislature has provided the interim measure to the spouse having no means or inadequate means to seek maintenance from the spouse who has means to pay the same since because of matrimonial dispute till its resolution by the Court, such affected party must be able to maintain herself or himself and contest the proceedings. The proceedings under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, are summary in nature and at this stage, the Court cannot embark upon the enquiry about misconduct of the spouse claiming maintenance or commission of marital offence. The proceedings under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, are summary in nature and at this stage, the Court cannot embark upon the enquiry about misconduct of the spouse claiming maintenance or commission of marital offence. I am fortified in my view by the judgement of this Court in (Smt. Gangu Pundlik Waghmare v. Pundlik Maroti Waghmare another)1, A.I.R. 1979 Bombay 264 wherein this Court ruled thus- "Section 24 of the Act which provides for payment of maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings, does not in terms provide that the spouse who makes the application under that section would not be entitled to a relief under it if he or she is guilty of any misconduct or any marital offence. Obviously this section is enacted with the object of providing maintenance to the spouse during pendency of the proceedings, who is not otherwise able to maintain himself or herself and has to depend upon the other spouse for that purpose. The same is the object for making provision for the expenses of the proceeding. The Legislature by enacting this provision appears to have taken note of the fact that during the pendency of the proceedings under the Act, say for divorce or judicial separation, the unity of the family would be disrupted and one of the two spouses would be thrown out from the protection and shelter of the other and would be rendered without any means not only to maintain herself or himself but also to meet the expenses necessary for the proceedings which he or she was to undergo. It is in order to obviate such a hardship that the Legislature thought it fit to make a provision in the Act for maintenance pendente lite and expenses of the proceedings from the spouse who has means to pay the same, if the other has no means. If that be the purpose of the Legislature in enacting this provision, it appears that the question whether the spouse claiming relief under this section is guilty of any marital misconduct or offence would not be relevant for the purpose of directing payment. It is presumed that the proceeding which is initiated under the Act would be for divorce, judicial separation or other matters based on certain allegations with regard to the misconduct or marital offence committed by the other spouse. It is presumed that the proceeding which is initiated under the Act would be for divorce, judicial separation or other matters based on certain allegations with regard to the misconduct or marital offence committed by the other spouse. 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 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 is or 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." 8.It is true that granting interim maintenance under section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, is a matter of discretion but like all other discretions exercisable by the Court, this discretion too has to be exercised judicially and in accordance with law. The consideration of a factor which does not flow from a statuary provision if taken into consideration while exercising discretion, such exercise of discretion cannot be said to have been exercised in accordance with law. In the present case the trial Court has committed the mistake by taking into consideration the conduct of wife while considering application under section 24 and therefore, the order impugned in the writ petition refusing to award maintenance pendente lite to the wife on the ground of misconduct cannot be sustained. 9.Writ petition is accordingly partly allowed. The order dated 29-8-98 impugned in the present writ petition is partly set aside to the extent the maintenance has been refused to the wife. The said Court is directed to hear and decide the question of award of interim maintenance to the wife afresh in accordance with law and the observations made hereinabove. The respondent-husband is directed to pay a sum of Rs. The said Court is directed to hear and decide the question of award of interim maintenance to the wife afresh in accordance with law and the observations made hereinabove. The respondent-husband is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2000/- to the wife towards cost of this writ petition. Petition partly allowed. *****