S. N. KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) THE respondent herein who is the wife has filed M. C. No. 11 of 1992 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, Dharwad, a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights. The said petition was filed on 25-2-1992. On 8-1-1993 the respondent entered appearance and is contesting the matter. On 1-6-1994 the wife made an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 for maintenance pendente lite. The said application was opposed by the husband. After considering the rival contentions by the impugned order the Court below awarded a maintenance of Rs. 1,000. 00 per month and directed the husband to pay the maintenance from the date of petition, namely 25-2-1992. The present revision petition is filed challenging the direction to pay maintenance from the date of petition till the date of the husband's appearance. ( 2 ) SRI H. L. Narasimha Murthy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contends the wife is entitled to the payment of maintenance from the day she made the application under Section 24 and not for a period prior to the said date. Even assuming that she is held to be entitled, it cannot be for a period beyond the date of appearance of the husband before the court below. In that view of the matter the order passed by the Court below cannot be sustained and therefore he prays for setting aside the said order. ( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent contends the wife is entitled for maintenance from the date of petition as is clear from Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 and therefore the Court below was justified in awarding the maintenance from the date of the petition. ( 4 ) A perusal of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 makes it clear that in any proceeding under the Act when an application is made for a direction to the opposite party to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceedings and monthly during the proceeding such sum as having regard to the petitioner's own income and the income of the respondent the Court may award such amount. Sri H. L. Narasimha murthy wants to contend relying on this provision any proceeding referred to in the said section applies to the application for grant of interim maintenance and not to the main proceedings in which such an application is made. I find it difficult to accept the said interpretation. ( 5 ) SECTION 24 of the Act deals with maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings. It makes it clear that in any proceedings under the Act on the application of either of the parties the Court may order the opposite party to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceedings and monthly maintenance during the proceedings. Therefore, the proceedings referred to in Section 24 is the main proceeding for one of the reliefs to which the parties are entitled to under the Act. It is in such proceedings right is conferred to either of the parties to make an application for payment of maintenance pendente lite. Therefore, the proceedings referred to in the said section is not referable to the application for interim maintenance. Further, the section makes it clear a direction could be issued to the petitioner to pay the expenses of the proceedings and monthly maintenance during the proceedings. That means from the commencement of the proceedings till that proceedings is concluded. Therefore, in the absence of any statutory bar for grant of interim maintenance from the date of the petition up to the date of the conclusion of the proceedings, merely because an application for interim maintenance is made subsequent to the filing of the proceedings under the Act it cannot be said the Court has no power to award maintenance from the date of initiation of the proceedings under the Act. The Court has in its discretion the power to grant interim maintenance either from the date of the initiation of the proceedings or from the date of appearance of the parties or from the date of making an application for interim maintenance or from such future date as the Court may deem fit, ( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgment of this court in N. Subramanyam v Mrs. M. G. Saraswathi1, to contend that if at all the maintenance is to be granted even prior to the date of application it should be granted from the day the husband is served with the notice of the proceedings. In the aforesaid judgment the question for consideration was in a husband's petition under the Act whether the wife is entitled to maintenance from the date of her application or from the date when she entered appearance. This Court held, though the application for maintenance is filed after her appearance in Court she would be entitled to maintenance from the day she entered appearance. Therefore, the Court has the power to grant maintenance from a date prior to the date of application under Section 34. As such the said judgment has no application to the facts of this case. Under those circumstances I am of the opinion that in the absence of any statutory bar for grant of maintenance from the date of initiation of proceedings under the Act, the award of maintenance by the Court below awarding maintenance from the date of petition cannot be found fault with. Under these circumstances, I do not find any merit in this civil revision petition. It is dismissed. --- *** --- .