JUDGMENT : Arun Kumar Goel, J.— 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This application has been seriously contested and resisted by Sh. T.S. Chauhan, learned Counsel for the Respondent-husband. According to him, Appellant-applicant is not at all entitled to any maintenance whatsoever in the peculiar circumstances of this case as she is living in adultery. Per him, if prayer made in this application is allowed it will tantamount to putting premium on the acts of an adulteress like the Appellant-applicant. With a view to support his this plea Sh. Chauhan placed reliance on the statement of PW-2 Smt. Kamla Devi. Per him, she is none-else but mother of the applicant. 3. This position was seriously contested and resisted by Mr. Thakur, appearing on behalf of the applicant. According to him adulteress conduct on the part of the Appellant-applicant is not at all relevant while considering the question of allowing the maintenance pendente lite as well as litigation expenses u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Relevant consideration in such a situation is one whether the applicant has or has no independent income sufficient for maintenance and for expenses of proceedings. If this is the factual situation, then adulteress conduct on the part of a party like the applicant losses its significance. 4. Even otherwise, this matter in my view, is no res integra in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Sarvo Devi v. Lashkari ILR (1983) 180. What was held and is relevant for the purposes of the present application is extracted hereinbelow : 3. Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, learned Counsel for the husband, vehemently contends that the wife should not be granted any amount u/s 24 of the Act since she has been held to be unchaste. At this stage Section 24 of the Act may be read with advantage: "24. Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, learned Counsel for the husband, vehemently contends that the wife should not be granted any amount u/s 24 of the Act since she has been held to be unchaste. At this stage Section 24 of the Act may be read with advantage: "24. 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 to the Petitioner the expenses of the proceeding, and monthly during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the Petitioners own income and the income of the Respondent, it may seem to the Court to be reasonable. It is obvious that the question whether the wife is chaste or not has no relevance to the question of the grant of maintenance. This provision seems to have been made to ensure that a spouse who has no independent income sufficient for the maintenance and for expenses of proceeding has a right to claim the same from the opposing spouse if the latter has sufficient income. The purpose is to ensure that not only the applicant is able to maintain himself/herself but also to meet the expenses of the proceeding. The expenses of the proceeding will, of course, include engaging a reasonably competent lawyer. For the purpose of proceeding in an appellate Court the expenses will usually be the counsels fee, the Court-fee required to be paid on various applications, and other sundry expenses." 5. It was fairly stated by Sh. Chauhan that the applicant was getting maintenance pendente lite @ Rs. 500 per month during the matrimonial proceedings before the learned trial Court and had also been allowed a sum of Rs. 1,000 as litigation expenses by the learned trial Court. 6. After having considered the respective submissions urged on behalf of the parties and also taking into account the totality of circumstances of this case, while allowing this application it is ordered that the applicant will be paid a sum of Rs. 650 per month as maintenance pendente lite w.e.f. Ist of March, 2004 and litigation expenses in the sum of Rs. 2,000. 650 per month as maintenance pendente lite w.e.f. Ist of March, 2004 and litigation expenses in the sum of Rs. 2,000. Maintenance pendente lite for the month of March, 2004 shall be remitted either through a money order or through a bank draft without deducting expenses by the Respondent to the Appellant. So far litigation expenses ordered by this order are concerned the amount will be remitted in two instalments one in the month of March, 2004 and the other in the month of April, 2004 alongwith maintenance pendente lite. For these two months the amount will be remitted in the aforesaid manner by or before 10th of each month. During this period applicant-Appellant is directed to give her Bank Account number to the Respondent through her counsel and from May, 2004 non-applicant-Respondent shall regularly keep on depositing the amount in the said bank account by or before 10th of each month during the pendency of this appeal. It is clarified that in case bank account number in writing is not provided by 20th of April, 2004 as ordered hereinabove, non-applicant-Respondent shall be entitled to deduct the Money Order/bank draft charges from the monthly maintenance pendente lite. The application is disposed of. 7. A copy of this order will be made available by the copying Agency of this Court to the learned Counsel for the parties within one month. 8. At this stage Sh. Chauhan submitted that this is a case where an attempt for conciliation needs to be made as required u/s 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Prayer allowed. Let parties appear on 12th of March, 2003 for this purpose.