JUDGMENT - S.B. MHASE, J.:---These two civil revision applications have been filed by the wife and husband respectively against each other challenging the order passed below Exhibit 10 from H.M.P. No. 19 of 1988. By the said order, the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon, has allowed the application of the wife i.e. the petitioner in C.R.A. No. 966 of 1989 by directing to pay Rs. 800/- towards the expenses of the litigation and Rs. 200/- per month towards interim maintenance to the wife w.e.f. 20-4-1988 i.e. the date of the application. And the payments of these were made as condition precedent for the purposes of the progress of the said proceeding. The wife has challenged this order dissatisfied with the inadequate amount of maintenance being awarded to her. The Civil Revision Application No. 211 of 1990 has been filed by the husband contending that the amount granted by the trial Court is exorbitant and in fact the trial Court should not have granted any interim alimony to the wife. 2. H.M.P. No. 19 of 1988 has been filed by the husband under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for getting the divorce on account of desertion from the wife. In the said application, the wife has preferred an application under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act to Award interim alimony at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per month and Rs. 2000/- towards the litigation expenses. 3. The wife has stated that the respondent husband is having family business in the name and style of Geeta Medicals, Geeta Selection and Geeta Suppliers at Bhadgaon and yielding an income of Rs. 2,00,000/- per year and the respondent husband gets Rs. 5000/- per month and therefore the wife has claimed an amount of Rs. 1500/- per month by way of interim maintenance and an amount of Rs. 2000/- towards the expenses of litigation. In reply to the said application the husband has contended that he is not carrying on any business. His two brothers are carrying on the business and that he is maintained by his parents. He has no independent source of income and he is not in a position to pay any amount to her and that the application under section 125, Criminal Procedure Code by the wife has been rejected and ultimately submitted that the application be rejected. 4. He has no independent source of income and he is not in a position to pay any amount to her and that the application under section 125, Criminal Procedure Code by the wife has been rejected and ultimately submitted that the application be rejected. 4. It is an admitted position that there are three shops namely Geeta Medicals, Geeta Selections and Geeta Suppliers. The only contention is that they belong to the brother of the respondent husband. In the trial Court, no record was produced to point out that those shops belong to the brothers and the respondent husband is not having any right, title and interest in those shops and that those shops do not belong to the family as the family business. It may be mentioned that in civil revision application which has been filed by the husband at Exhibits B, C and D, the documents have been produced in respect of the income-tax assessment to show that the medical shop belong to Lalitkumar Nemichand Bamb who is one of the brothers of the respondent husband. It was tried to be pointed out that the status shown in the certificate of the Income-tax department is individual and shops belong to Lalitkumar. No doubt, these are the documents of the income-tax department, however had those been produced in the trial Court, the wife could have an opportunity to rebut those documents. Let the fact remain as it is. It was in fact for the husband to further point out, if he wanted to maintain that all these shops belong to his brother, as to how the funds were raised for the purposes of the said shops. Nothing has been brought on record to that effect. Even assuming for the sake of argument that these documents show that Geeta Medicals belong to one brother namely Lalitkumar, however in respect of the other two shops namely Geeta Suppliers and Geeta Selection, nothing has been brought on record that those concerns are individual concern of other brother or of Lalitkumar. The only submission made is that even though there is presumption in favour of the jointness of the family there is no presumption in respect of the jointness of the property. Thus it has been accepted that all these members of the family stay jointly. Only contention raised is that the property cannot be presumed to be joint. The only submission made is that even though there is presumption in favour of the jointness of the family there is no presumption in respect of the jointness of the property. Thus it has been accepted that all these members of the family stay jointly. Only contention raised is that the property cannot be presumed to be joint. The question is not of the presumption being raised by the Court, because there is affidavit filed by the wife who is the member of the family of the respondent-husband stating that all these shops belong to the family and the respondent-husband gets income from those shops and therefore in order to rebut that statement which she has made on oath by filing affidavit, it was for the husband to produce the documents to show that the property does not belong to the joint family. However, unless and until the statements made by the wife are rebutted by the husband, that statements will lead to establish a fact that the business is joint family business and contention that there is no presumption in respect of jointness of property is of no help to husband. Therefore, prima facie the fact will have to be inferred that the shops belong to the joint family. This Court is aware that this is not a property suit but Court is considering for the purposes of interim alimony and whether there is source available to the husband to pay the interim alimony. One more aspect is required to be stated here is that the husband in the present matter is possessed of best possible material with him either through his brother and/or through his parents to point out what is the position of these shops qua the joint family whether they belong to the joint family and/or whether separate individual concern. Except opposing it no material has been placed on record. Except opposing it no material has been placed on record. It requires to be stated that the wife who comes in the family as a result of the marriage and thereafter the marital relations in the family are disturbed within few months on her entry in the family and before she is acquainted with the total family affairs in respect of the property matters unfortunately have to separate as is the case in the present matter and therefore because of the situation under which she is posted it is not possible for her to get documentary information in respect of the family business and income and so many other things. Therefore, it was for the husband to clarify the position so far as the business is concerned. In the absence of such attempt being made on the part of husband, the statements made by the wife have to be accepted, otherwise it will be very easy for husband to throw wife on road and ask her to starve without affording any maintenance and that will be more so in case where the business communities are throwing their wives on road because everything is in the knowledge of the male persons who deal with the business. Therefore, as I find in the present matter, the statement of wife should have been rebutted by the husband by placing on record documentary evidence, which he has failed to do so. Therefore, I find that the present husband is possessed of sufficient source of income. 5. Statement made by the wife that she has no independent income for her to support herself to bear necessary expenses of the proceeding is not challenged and it is an admitted position on record that she has no independent source of income which will be sufficient to support herself and bear the expenses of proceedings in Court. On the contrary it is a fact on record that she has been supported by her parents. 6. Under the above referred circumstances, therefore, the respondent-husband is under obligation to support the wife by way of interim maintenance and providing the expenses for litigating the litigation. 7. On the contrary it is a fact on record that she has been supported by her parents. 6. Under the above referred circumstances, therefore, the respondent-husband is under obligation to support the wife by way of interim maintenance and providing the expenses for litigating the litigation. 7. The learned Counsel appearing for the husband submitted that there is no source of income for the husband and if it is found that there is no source of income for the husband the Court cannot pass order for maintenance and expenses of the proceeding and the application under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act has to be rejected. He relied upon the judgment reported in 1979 Mh.L.J. 555 in the case of (Gangu Pundalik v. Pundalik Maroti)1. He pointed out that the portion: "It cannot be contended that phrase in section 24, Hindu Marriage Act having regard to the income of the petitioner and of respondent it may seem to the Court to be reasonable governs only the phrase "and monthly during the proceedings such sum as" and not the words "the expenses of the proceeding". There is no reason for such a distinction. As a man cannot be compelled to do what he cannot possibly perform such an interpretation cannot be put as the Court would not be able to enforce its order. It cannot, therefore, be contended that the Court is bound to grant expenses of the litigation to the applicant under section 24 irrespective of the means of the opponent. The Court must therefore while ordering payment of expenses take into consideration the income of the opponent against whom the order is sought. If opponent is found not to have sufficient income the Court is not bound to order payment of expenses." It is not necessary to consider this case because this will apply in fact where Court has arrived at finding that husband is not possessed of sufficient income. In the present matter I have already recorded a finding that opponent husband is possessed of sufficient income and therefore this case is not applicable. 8. Thereafter, the learned Counsel for the husband submitted that the application for maintenance under section 125, Criminal Procedure Code has been rejected and therefore the order under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act cannot be passed. 8. Thereafter, the learned Counsel for the husband submitted that the application for maintenance under section 125, Criminal Procedure Code has been rejected and therefore the order under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act cannot be passed. It requires to be mentioned here that the order under section 125, Criminal Procedure Code has no relevance with the order under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The object and the purpose of both the sections are very different. The proceedings under section 125, Criminal Procedure Code provides immediate and speedy remedy to the wife and children so as to avoid vagrancy of the wife and the children. As against that section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act tries to bring to equal level both the parties in litigation by providing maintenance and costs of litigation and so that there should be fair play while deciding the matrimonial rights of the parties. The learned Counsel for the husband relied upon 1978 Mh.L.J. 123 in the case of (Sharadchandra v. Indubai)2, in order to support the contention negativing the right of the wife to get maintenance under section 125, Criminal Procedure Code. It requires to be mentioned here that the ratio laid down in the judgment reported in 1978 Mh.L.J. 123 is not at all applicable because that is a matter arising out of the proceedings under section 125, Criminal Procedure Code and in that matter the decree of judicial separation was passed by the Civil Court wherein it has been held that the wife has deserted the husband and on the basis of the said decree the wife's claim under section 125 Criminal Procedure Code has been negatived. What is important to be noted is that under section 125, Criminal Procedure Code neglect and refusal by the husband to maintain the wife is the ground for getting maintenance if the husband is found with sufficient means and when there is a finding of the Civil Court in a matrimonial litigation that the wife has deserted the husband, naturally it cannot be held that the husband has neglected or refused to maintain the wife, and therefore, the Division Bench declined to grant maintenance under section 125, Criminal Procedure Code. However, that is not the case in the present matter. However, that is not the case in the present matter. In the present case, the matrimonial rights of the parties and the disputes between the parties have not been so far adjudicated and therefore, who is responsible for separation of the husband and wife has not yet been established. Section 24 has been provided for wherein the maintenance will be provided to the wife in addition to the charges for contesting the litigation, so that Hindu Marriage petition can be effectively contested by both parties, therefore, the scope of section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act in a matrimonial litigation is quite different than the case under section 125 and therefore, the case which has been cited by the learned Counsel for the husband is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of present case. In the result, I am not inclined to accept the submission made by the learned Counsel for the husband that the husband is not supposed to give maintenance and the expenses of the litigation in the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, I record my finding that the respondent husband is a man with sufficient means to support himself and provide maintenance to the wife. 9. The trial Court has granted Rs. 200/- per month as interim maintenance to the wife and an amount of Rs. 800/- as expenses of the litigation. With respect to the trial Court, this amount, looking to the present days rising prices of the essential commodities, is a mockery of the provisions of the maintenance. Here in the present matter, it is an admitted position that the wife has to attend the Court from Pune to Jalgaon and the expenses towards to and from each trip will be more than Rs. 500/- each time. As against that an amount of Rs. 800/- has been awarded as expenses which is not sufficient to meet out the two dates travel when such matters are adjourned from time to time so also the amount of Rs. 200/- per month is too meagre amount. 10. 500/- each time. As against that an amount of Rs. 800/- has been awarded as expenses which is not sufficient to meet out the two dates travel when such matters are adjourned from time to time so also the amount of Rs. 200/- per month is too meagre amount. 10. Having observed earlier that the best possible evidence in respect of the income of the husband being in possession and custody of the husband, has not been produced by him and that is probably if that evidence is produced the same would affect his case adversely and therefore he rather preferred to suppress that evidence than producing it before the Court so as to persuade the Court that he has no income to support himself and to maintain the wife. However, under these circumstances, there is no alternative but to accept the statement made by the wife that the income of the husband is Rs. 5000/- per month from the business. Therefore, I feel it appropriate to grant interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per month as requested by the wife. As far as the amount towards the expenses of the litigation is concerned, I restrict myself to the prayer which the wife has made namely to the extent of Rs. 2000/-. At this stage, Mr. Kulkarni, learned Counsel appearing for the husband contended that the husband is suffering from heart ailment and that he has filed affidavit to that effect. This Court do not want to go into that controversy because the petitioner husband who is present before this Court is definitely in a position to look after the business which the wife has alleged that he is looking after when the application for maintenance was filed. The question of his heart ailment would have become some what relevant had this Court been considering the case of the husband for the purposes of labour work, but from the facts it appears that the family is having business and the firms and concerns of the family which have been shown by the wife appears to be Geeta Medicals, Geeta Selection which appears to be antique and Geeta Suppliers, therefore, the heart ailment will not have any effect on the capacity to earn Rs. 5000/- per month as alleged by the wife, therefore, the said submission is not relevant for the purposes of deciding these civil revision applications. 11. 5000/- per month as alleged by the wife, therefore, the said submission is not relevant for the purposes of deciding these civil revision applications. 11. In the result, Civil Revision Application No. 211 of 990 filed by the petitioner-husband is hereby rejected. The Civil Revision Application No. 966 of 1989 filed by the petitioner-wife is hereby allowed. The husband-Vardhaman alias Pushkaraj alias Narendra s/o Nemichand Bamb is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1500/- per month to the respondent wife from the date of application i.e. 20-4-1988 till the disposal of the H.M.P. No. 19 of 1988. He is further directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 2000/- towards the expenses of litigation. The order of this Court shall be complied with by the husband within a period of two months from the date of this order. 12. At this stage, Mr. Godhamgaonkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner in Civil Revision Application No. 966 of 1989 which is filed by the wife, contended that costs may be granted in this matter. It appears that the matter is pending since 1989 in this Court and the H.M. petition is of the year 1988. The order for calling the record was obtained sometime in the year 1990 by the husband in his petition i.e. Civil Revision Application No. 211 of 1990 which record was not at all necessary for disposal of this petition which ultimately resulted into protraction of the trial of the H.M.P. No. 19 of 1988 in the trial Court. Therefore, I am inclined to impose cost of the tune of Rs. 2500/- which shall be paid by the husband to the wife. 13. Accordingly, Rule made absolute in Civil Revision Application 966 of 1989 and Rule in Civil Revision Application No. 211 of 1990 is discharged. Order accordingly. -----