JUDGMENT : C.K. Buch, J. The petitioner-Hemlata H Bhaidasna of both these petitions, wife of respondent - Hiren M Bhaidasna has seen the light of this Court room, as two different orders passed by the learned lower Court viz., order dated 10/05/2006 passed below Application Exh.24 in Hindu Marriage Petition No.148 of 1995 passed by the learned IInd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara and the order dated 01/09/2005 passed below application Exh.33 in Special Civil Suit No.613 of 1995 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara, have been challenged by way of preferring these petitions invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being Special Civil Application No.12530 of 2006 and Special Civil Application No.23035 of 2006 respectively. 2. Mr. Haresh J Trivedi, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. N.L. Dave, learned Advocate for the respondent in both these petitions have submitted that both these petitions to be heard and decided together and it is, therefore, possible for this Court to heard and dispose of these petitions by this common judgment and order. 3. The respondent-husband filed petition for divorce in the year 1995 on the ground of desertions. It is the say of the petitioner-wife that she was driven out of her matrimonial home in the month of May, 1989 and she was therefore compelled to go immediately to Women Protection Cell and the responsible person of that cell had taken her to her parental home. During the said wedlock, the petitioner - wife delivered two children, one son on 28/07/1981 and daughter on 05/03/1985. Both these children are major and earning for themselves and residing with the respondent-husband. In the year 1995, the petitioner-wife received notice of divorce petition filed by the respondent-husband and therefore the petitioner-wife filed Special Civil Suit No.613 of 1995 under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, for maintenance simultaneously by preferring application Exh.5 praying for some interim maintenance. The copy of the application Exh.5 is not available on record, but it emerges that the same had remained pending for long. However, before said application Exh.5 came to be decided, on 29/01/1999 the petitioner-wife had preferred application below Exh.33 in Special Civil Suit No.613 of 1995 seeking enhancement of amount of maintenance to the sum of Rs. 7,500/- per month. However, before said application Exh.5 came to be decided, on 29/01/1999 the petitioner-wife had preferred application below Exh.33 in Special Civil Suit No.613 of 1995 seeking enhancement of amount of maintenance to the sum of Rs. 7,500/- per month. In the application Exh.5, the petitioner - wife had prayed that interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month may be awarded, but in view of fresh application Exh.33, the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara vide order dated 01/09/2005 after lapse of several years decided and allowed the said application Exh.33 and respondent-husband and defendant in that application was directed to pay Rs. 500/- per month towards the interim maintenance from the date of passing of order till the final decision of the suit. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 01/09/2005 passed below application Exh.33 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara, the petitioner-wife preferred petition being Special Civil Application No.23035 o 2006 on the ground mentioned in the petition and prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to modify order below Exh.33 by enhancing amount of maintenance from Rs. 500/- per month to Rs. 7,500/- per month and further to direct the respondent-husband to pay the arrears of the amount of maintenance by way of interim order. 5. During the oral submission, it is the say of Mr. Trivedi that if the Court decides that some reasonable enhancement requires to be granted then that enhancement amount may be granted as interim maintenance to the petitioner from the date of the application preferred for the first time below Exh.5 which has remained undecided till 1995 to 2005. It is unfortunate that the application praying interim maintenance remains undecided for about 10 years on the file of the learned Civil Judge. 6. The grievance of Mr. Trivedi is that considering the status of both the families including wife and husband, the Court ought to have considered the other aspect i.e. income of the respondent-husband and the fact that the petitioner-wife for all the while has remained waiting for amicable solution of her matrimonial dispute since 1989 and had not approached any Court for getting the maintenance. According to Mr. Trivedi, the petitioner-wife was not interested in continuing the matrimonial ties, more particularly, two children were there. According to Mr. Trivedi, the petitioner-wife was not interested in continuing the matrimonial ties, more particularly, two children were there. But, when she found that she was being prosecuted for divorce by the respondent-husband, she moved the Court for interim maintenance and filed a Special Civil Suit No.613 of 1995 under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. The Court granted Rs. 500/- per month as maintenance to her from the date of passing of order i.e. 01/09/2005. True it is that the petitioner - wife can be awarded amount of maintenance that may be determined by the Court on the strength of the evidence available on record and the petitioner - wife can be granted arrears of maintenance from the date of application preferred, but it is rightly submitted by Mr. Trivedi that the learned Judge has totally ignored the relevant settled criteria while granting interim maintenance to the petitioner-wife. 6.1 Mr. Trivedi has submitted that the learned Judge has failed in exercising the jurisdiction in an appropriate manner and the learned Judge has not even care to assign any reasons as to why the petitioner-wife is not entitled to amount of maintenance from the date of application preferred below Ex.5. There is no controversy on the legal aspect that the petitioner-wife approaching for maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, can be awarded interim maintenance, as in more than one decisions of this Court as well as of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is held so. 7. Mr. Dave, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent-husband has not controverted the stand taken by the Court, as in view of the facts emerging from the pleadings of the parties and the fact that the respondent-husband has responsibility as a guardian of two children and other family members including the parents, the Court has awarded Rs. 500/- only granted and Rs. 500/- which looking to the income of respondent-husband cannot be said to be either inadequate or unreasonable amount. 8. The decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court reported in case of Sangeeta Piyush Raj v. Piyush Chaturbhuj Raj reported in AIR 1998 Bombay Page 251 as relied upon by the learned Judge while dealing with application Exh.24 under Section 24 of the Act, has not been properly considered and that has resulted into injustice. According to Mr. 8. The decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court reported in case of Sangeeta Piyush Raj v. Piyush Chaturbhuj Raj reported in AIR 1998 Bombay Page 251 as relied upon by the learned Judge while dealing with application Exh.24 under Section 24 of the Act, has not been properly considered and that has resulted into injustice. According to Mr. Dave, learned Advocate for the respondent - husband, the ratio of the decision of Sangeeta Piyush Raj (Supra) as relied upon by the learned Judge squarely applies to the facts of the present case and the petitioner-wife was not entitled to get the amount of alimony, as the petitioner-wife has been awarded amount of maintenance by the competent court in the suit filed by her under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. When the learned trial Judge found that the petitioner-wife could not have preferred the application for interim alimony, there was no scope for the learned Judge to grant any amount and Rs. 500/- is adequate amount. The learned trial Judge was also supposed to look to the conduct viz., responsibility of the respondent-husband and according to Mr. Dave, none of orders passed by the Court below require any interference, as the orders are sound and reasoned order. There are no element of perversity or patent illegality and petitions require to be dismissed. 9. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and both the Counsel have drawn the attention of this Court to certain crucial facts including the salary of the respondent-husband at relevant point of time and the increase in the same. The Court is informed that the son who is residing with the respondent-husband is also earning member and helping hand of the respondent-father. 10. It is required to be noted that pending Hindu Marriage Petition filed in the year 1995 and when interim maintenance application was pending in the maintenance suit filed by petitioner-wife in the year 1995, the petitioner-wife had prayed for amount of alimony under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act in Hindu Marriage Petition No.148 of 1995 and prayed for interim alimony from the date of application i.e. from 26/06/1995. Application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act was preferred on 10/11/1998. However, the learned Judge rejected the said application saying that petitioner-wife is not entitled to get interim alimony, as the petitioner-wife is already granted Rs. Application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act was preferred on 10/11/1998. However, the learned Judge rejected the said application saying that petitioner-wife is not entitled to get interim alimony, as the petitioner-wife is already granted Rs. 500/- by way of interim maintenance in the suit filed by her under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. 11. The learned Judge has also considered the other aspect including the aspect that petitioner-wife has remained silent for about three years in approaching the Court to get interim alimony under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Of course, the learned Judge has not stated anything in clear words, but the time taken by her in preferring application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, i.e. application Exh.24 is impliedly viewed as lack of bona-fide. According to Mr. Trivedi, learned Advocate for the petitioner-wife, this finding can be said to be perverse and patently illegal. At the most, the learned Judge could have considered the amount of Rs. 500/- i.e. being awarded to her by way of alimony and adjustment of the amount of Rs. 500/- could have been ordered. In case petitioner-wife getting amount of maintenance under Section 25 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, approaches the Court to get the amount of alimony under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, then she is being asked to make adjustment of the amount received by her under Section 25 of the Cr.P.C. The approach of the Court should be that no wife is given opportunity to exploit the situation and to make use of litigation to harass the husband. 12. So far as the challenge of the order of interim maintenance granted in a suit under Section 18 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, is concerned, this Court is of the view that the learned Judge has failed in assigning good, sound reasons as to why the petitioner-wife is entitled to get the amount of maintenance of Rs. 500/- only. As such there is no discussion in the order qua the earlier application preferred by the petitioner-wife below Exh.5 and the indecisive stage that has remained upto 29/01/1999, the date on which the application Exh.33 came to be preferred for enhancement of amount of maintenance from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 7500/- per month. 500/- only. As such there is no discussion in the order qua the earlier application preferred by the petitioner-wife below Exh.5 and the indecisive stage that has remained upto 29/01/1999, the date on which the application Exh.33 came to be preferred for enhancement of amount of maintenance from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 7500/- per month. As such, there is no dispute that there is no quarrel habituation since the year 1999 and petitioner-wife had remained silent and had not approached any Court till the year 1995. The date on which the respondent-husband filed divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, what would be the effect of the conduct of the petitioner-wife is a matter of appreciation of evidence that, may be led by the parties. 13. Merely because wife has not preferred any application for maintenance either under Hindu Marriage Act or under the scheme of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, would not automatically make her disentitle to get reasonable amount of maintenance considering the minimum requirement for living dignified life especially when the husband was engineer and was earning reasonable sum at all point of time since the date of marriage. There is no controversy as to the monthly income of the respondent-husband. True it is that wife had contended that respondent-husband was earning handsome amount, but it is clear that the respondent was once serving with Calico Fiber as Production Engineer and his salary was of Rs. 4,500/- in the month of January, 1976. Leaving that job, the respondent-husband joined Synthetic Fiber Ltd., and he was being paid Rs. 10,000/- per month + allowances. 14. The learned Judge has not discussed in detailed about the income of the husband and has also not assigned reasons as to why the income of husband requires to be ignored. The learned Judge has mainly concentrated on the obligation of respondent-husband to maintain other members of the family and it is observed that the Court should not overlook such obligation. The learned trial Judge has observed that there may not be any specific formula which may be available in all cases. Each case will depend on particular set of circumstances. The learned trial Judge has also considered one decision reported in 1998 DMC 502. The learned trial Judge has observed that there may not be any specific formula which may be available in all cases. Each case will depend on particular set of circumstances. The learned trial Judge has also considered one decision reported in 1998 DMC 502. The learned trial Judge has ignored that wife also will have to incur expenses in contesting the litigation and learned trial Judge has assigned no logical reason as to why the petitioner-wife should not be granted maintenance from the date of application Exh.5 preferred. How the amount of Rs. 500/- was determined for interim maintenance is not clear, if the order under challenge is to be read. The Presiding Judge may not be happy with the conduct of the wife in the proceeding or may have sympathy for the husband for reasons best known to the learned Presiding Officer or the present state of mind of the learned Judge may be against the petitioner-wife as both the children has been brought up by the respondent-husband, but this should not be a material criteria in deciding the adequate amount of maintenance which requires to be granted under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. The learned Judge ought to have considered that the first proceeding for decree of divorce has been initiated by the respondent-husband and that has led the petitioner-wife to approach the Court for maintenance leaving all hopes of reestablishment of matrimonial ties. The petitioner-wife may have thought during the long span of separation between the year 1998 when she was thrown out of her matrimonial house in the year 1995 that her children may have turned hostile to her or the children may not have worthy feeling. The age of the children obviously relevant on 01/09/2005. Nothing has been looked into by the learned trial Judge while deciding the amount of interim maintenance. It is possible that the learned Presiding Judge may not have been assisted by the learned Advocates appearing for the parties in this regard. 15. Chapter - III of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 deals with the maintenance including the maintenance of widow of daughter-in-law and children as well as aged parents. Section 18 provides for maintenance of wife and the powers to make interim order for maintenance pending application (suit) under Section 18 is implicit in section. 15. Chapter - III of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 deals with the maintenance including the maintenance of widow of daughter-in-law and children as well as aged parents. Section 18 provides for maintenance of wife and the powers to make interim order for maintenance pending application (suit) under Section 18 is implicit in section. It is not the say in the present case that no prima-facie case is made out. The day on which the application for interim maintenance (Exh.5) preferred by the petitioner-wife in the suit filed by her under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, divorce petition filed by the respondent-husband was already pending. As observed by the Bombay High Court in case of Vinodkumar Kejriwal v. Usha Kejrival reported in AIR 1993 Mumbai 160, the provision of Section 18 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, is implicit and ancillary power to grant interim maintenance cannot be said to be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and therefore it would not hit by Section 4 (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is not necessary for this Court to discuss the law and the concept behind the scheme of Section 18 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. Section 4 of the Hindu Marriage Act deals with overriding effect of the Act. Sub-section - b of Section 4 of the Hindu Marriage Act, provides that any other law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall cease to have effect in so far as it is inconsistent with any of the provisions contained in this Act. So it was not possible for the respondent-husband to argue that the petitioner-wife could have approached the Court with an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, more particularly, when the divorce petition filed by respondent-husband was pending. 16. In response of the query raised by the Court, this Court is informed that the respondent-husband is serving with a limited company i.e. Zenith Fibers and his basic salary is Rs. 8,500/- in the month of January, 2006. This figure would really help the averments made by the petitioner wife in her petition praying for interim maintenance that the respondent-husband must be getting amount Rs. 5,000/- per month in the year 1976. 8,500/- in the month of January, 2006. This figure would really help the averments made by the petitioner wife in her petition praying for interim maintenance that the respondent-husband must be getting amount Rs. 5,000/- per month in the year 1976. The deduction of amount of advance taken from the company is irrelevant as per the settled legal position. So, the petitioner-wife ought to have been granted minimum Rs. 1,000/- per month by way of interim maintenance from the date of application Exh.5 preferred by her in the year 1995 in the suit filed by her. Ultimately, the amount granted to her was to be adjusted against the amount of maintenance, if she is otherwise held to receive from her husband. The learned trial Judge has jurisdiction to pass a decree of granting maintenance that the respondent-wife given the credit of the amount received by her finally of interim maintenance from the decretal amount. It appears that the learned trial Judge has ignored all legal relevant aspects while dealing with application Exh.33. 17. Mr. Trivedi, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-wife has drawn attention of this Court to more than one judgment of this Court and in certain judgments normally the amount of maintenance or interim maintenance is to be granted from the date of application preferred and the Courts are supposed to give good and sound reasons as to why the amount of maintenance is not given from the date of application preferred and same is granted from the date of passing of the order. True it is that this part of the order is discretionary, but while exercising discretionary jurisdiction the Courts are supposed to look to the settled legal position. On facts also, this is a case where the petitioner-wife ought to have been granted maintenance from the date of application Exh.5 preferred in the year 1995. Indecisive stage of situation remained upto year 2006 would result into great injustice to the wife when the amount of maintenance granted from the date of passing of the order. Such an order can be upheld if the same is passed in couple of two weeks from the date of filing of the application and then the learned trial Judge may not assign detail reason as to why the applicant is granted interim maintenance from the date of order. Such an order can be upheld if the same is passed in couple of two weeks from the date of filing of the application and then the learned trial Judge may not assign detail reason as to why the applicant is granted interim maintenance from the date of order. If the order under challenge is upheld then the petitioner-wife would loss her legitimate right to get the amount of maintenance from the date of making application. This is a case of failure of exercising discretionary jurisdiction by the learned lower Court and the order was passed ignoring the settled legal position in reference to grant of interim maintenance. The order is also found non-speaking and unreasoned order qua the determination of the amount of interim maintenance as decided by the lower Court of Rs. 500/- and the same is found without discussion as to the status of the family of the respondent-husband and minimum requirement of wife in her days. True it is that one forth amount should not be awarded but a wife of engineer having settled life if is granted Rs. 500/- per month maintenance in the year 2006 from the date of passing of the order, is nothing but a denial of her legitimate right. 18. It is not a matter of dispute that the petitioner-wife is born and brought up in a higher middle class family. During her sickness facility of expert doctors were available to her. Petitioner wife studied in a reputed school of city of Vadodara and is a postgraduate and having educational qualification of M.A. With Psychology. Petitioner wife also received the such facilities at her matrimonial home after her marriage for long. However, the status of the petitioner-wife appears to have been ignored by the learned Judge while awarding the interim maintenance of Rs. 500/- from the date of passing of the order. 19. Failure of exercising writ jurisdiction results into denial of justice and same has happened in the present case. Therefore, the petition being Special Civil Application No.23035 of 2006 requires to be allowed and is partly allowed. The order dated 01/09/2005 passed below application Exh.33 in Special Civil Suit No.613 of 1995 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara is quashed and set aside. Therefore, the petition being Special Civil Application No.23035 of 2006 requires to be allowed and is partly allowed. The order dated 01/09/2005 passed below application Exh.33 in Special Civil Suit No.613 of 1995 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara is quashed and set aside. It is held that the petitioner-wife is entitled to interim maintenance in the suit filed by her under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) per month from the date of filing of the application Exh.5 till 31/12/2004 and further she is entitled for interim maintenance of Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred Only) from 01/01/2005 till the decision of the suit. The amount received by petitioner-wife by way of interim maintenance shall be given credit of from the total amount of maintenance that she may be received including the arrears of past three years. Merely, because she preferred enhancement application Exh.33, the application Exh.5 was not required to be ignored at all and when it was possible for the learned trial Judge to grant interim maintenance from the date of application Exh.5 preferred and when the petitioner wife was entitled to get such an order in her favour, non-passing of such order is nothing but a denial to have that relief. The Court is not inclined to consider the point that petitioner-wife can be granted maintenance from the date of filing of the suit of any higher amount than the interim maintenance granted. This logic can be applied practically in all cases, but ultimately it would result into great hardship qua the recovery of the arrears of amount of maintenance. So the Court is not supposed to pass order on any assumption or inference that can be said to be conjecture. The legal entitlement is required to be determined in case of application for maintenance and while doing so the Court is supposed to look to the settled position carved out in various decision of this Court as well as the Apex Court, more particularly when such right is being curtained under an order. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. The legal entitlement is required to be determined in case of application for maintenance and while doing so the Court is supposed to look to the settled position carved out in various decision of this Court as well as the Apex Court, more particularly when such right is being curtained under an order. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Special Civil Application No.12530 of 2006 20.1 As mentioned earlier, the present petition is filed with a prayer that this Court in exercise of powers of superintendence may issue any appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the order dated 10/05/2006 passed below Application Exh.24 in Hindu Marriage Petition No.148 of 1995 passed by the learned IInd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara praying for interim maintenance pendente lite. 20.2 The first paragraph of application Exh.24 says that the petitioner-wife has already preferred Special Civil Suit No.613 of 1995 under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act and petitioner-wife has also prayed for maintenance pendente lite, but as unfortunately no order has been passed in reference to interim maintenance prayed by petitioner-wife and she preferred application to get interim maintenance pending divorce petition so that petitioner can meet with the litigation initiated by the respondent-husband. 20.3 It is claimed that petitioner-wife may be paid expenses for the litigation and it is submitted that total rejection of the application preferred under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, would seriously prejudice to the right of the petitioner wife to defend litigation initiated by the respondent-husband and the learned Judge has not taken care to look into the entire scheme of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act reads as under: "24. Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act reads as under: "24. Maintenance Pendente lite and expenses 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 to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding, and monthly during 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." 20.4 In a suit filed in the year 1998 under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, the petitioner-wife was granted interim maintenance of Rs. 500/- from the date of passing of the order i.e. in the year 2005 after about 10 years and even then petitioner-wife has been denied interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 10/05/2006 saying that "a s the interim maintenance is awarded to the opponent-wife under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, the opponent-wife is not entitled for the ad-interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Application for ad-interim maintenance of the opponent below Exh.24 is hereby rejected. Costs in the cause." 20.5 The learned Judge has discussed the facts as well as number of decisions pointed out by learned Advocate appearing for the parties while assisting the Court on the issue, more particularly, in reference to quantum of maintenance and costs as well as the maintainability of the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. As discussed earlier and observed by the Bombay High Court in case of Vinodkumar (Supra), scheme of Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, cannot be said to be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and therefore the same would not hit by Section 4 (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. As discussed earlier and observed by the Bombay High Court in case of Vinodkumar (Supra), scheme of Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, cannot be said to be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and therefore the same would not hit by Section 4 (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. So the maintainability of the application ought not to have been cursorily decided in the background of the facts of the case of the petitioner, as it was possible for the petitioner-wife to convince the Court that from the date of application filed by her in the year 1995 or from the date of initiation of proceeding of divorce by the respondent-husband, she may be awarded interim maintenance and costs of litigation that she will likely to incur. As in earlier orders, petitioner-wife was not awarded any maintenance of previous period though the same was claimed by her and the arrears of interim maintenance. Thus, at the most it can be said that non-granting of interim maintenance from the date of application in a suit preferred under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act be treated as rejection of prayer as made. But it is also relevant that no speaking order for this purpose is passed rejecting the prayer to grant maintenance from the date of application. 20.6 The learned trial Judge while dealing with the application in a matrimonial proceeding, was supposed to consider whether the wife is entitled to interim maintenance from the date of either filing of suit or from the date on which she preferred application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. In the same way, the learned Judge was also under legal obligation to consider whether petitioner-wife is entitled to any expenses of proceeding. The right of a wife for maintenance is an incident of the status or the estate of matrimony. In general, therefore the husband is bound to defray the wife's costs of any proceeding under the Act and to provide for her the maintenance and support pending the disposal of such proceeding. The doctrine of alimony, which expression in this strict sense means allowance due to wife from the husband. It also recognise that when the wife has separate means sufficient for her defence and subsistence she should not be entitled to alimony nor costs during the proceeding. The doctrine of alimony, which expression in this strict sense means allowance due to wife from the husband. It also recognise that when the wife has separate means sufficient for her defence and subsistence she should not be entitled to alimony nor costs during the proceeding. But in the present case, the facts are different and rejection of application of petitioner - wife preferred under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is not that she is not required any assistance qua expenses and maintenance pendente lite by husband. The expressions 'respondent' and 'petitioner' in the section obviously refer to the respondent and petitioner to the interlocutory application for alimony pendente lite and for provision for costs and not to the petitioner and the respondent to the substantive petition. Here, it is essential to note that there can be no rigid rule in maintenance as to the proposition to be given and it would be an error to decide first what the proposition should be and then to examine the other relevant factors. 20.7 The lower Court was supposed to deal with other relevant factors and thereafter the proposition of maintenance pendente lite and the date for entitlement for such amount of maintenance. It is clear from the plain reading of the order under challenge that the learned Judge rejected the application accepting the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Sangeeta Piyush Raj v. Piyush Chaturbhuj Raj reported in AIR 1998 Bombay Page 251 and has focused on the finding recorded below the application praying interim maintenance in the substantive proceeding initiated under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. It is not necessary for this Court to reproduce relevant paragraph Nos.5 and 6 of the impugned order, but it is clear from the plain reading of those paragraphs that the learned Judge was of the view that the facts of the present case would squarely cover by the decision in case of Sangeeta Piyush Raj (Supra). The learned Judge has gone to the extent while passing the order that if the opponent wife was aggrieved against the order of interim maintenance passed by the Civil Court in a suit filed by her Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, she could have filed revision or appeal against the said order of the Civil Court. The learned Judge has gone to the extent while passing the order that if the opponent wife was aggrieved against the order of interim maintenance passed by the Civil Court in a suit filed by her Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, she could have filed revision or appeal against the said order of the Civil Court. 20.8 Here, it is relevant to discuss the ratio of the decision in case of AIR 2001 Gujarat Page 148 in case of Aher Mensi Ramsi v. Aherani Bai Mini Jetha wherein the High Court has observed that thus it is clear that remedy under both the laws are available to the wife and those remedies are co-existent, mutually complementary and in aid and addition of each other. Hence, the remedy resorted to under either of the two cannot foreclose the remedy under the other Act. Of course, this Court was dealing with the scheme of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, but the say of the learned lower Court in the present case is that as this Court was dealing with one remedy available under the Code of Criminal Procedure, the case of Aher Mensi (Supra) cannot be equated with the facts of the present and therefore the observations of the Bombay High Court in case of Sangeeta Piyush Raj (Supra) would apply. 20.9 The decision in case of Sudeep Chaudhary v. Radha Chaudhary, reported in AIR 1999 SC 536 is also in reference to the amount awarded under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the amount of maintenance awarded in a matrimonial proceedings. The Apex Court has held that this amount are adjustable and the amount awarded in matrimonial proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be adjusted qua the amount awarded under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court is of the view that the learned Judge was under legal obligation to consider that whether it is legally possible to award interim maintenance pendente lite from the date of initiation of the divorce proceeding by the respondent-husband or from the date of application filed by wife in the year 1995. The court is of the view that the learned Judge was under legal obligation to consider that whether it is legally possible to award interim maintenance pendente lite from the date of initiation of the divorce proceeding by the respondent-husband or from the date of application filed by wife in the year 1995. It appears that inaction on the part of the Court to decide the application praying for interim maintenance in the suit filed under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, has been attributed to the wife approaching Court at a later stage in the year 1998 in a divorce proceeding instituted in the year 1995. It is not necessary for the Court to comment on this but there may be reason and reasons for the purpose. 20.10 Delay in filing application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act would not by itself make petitioner-wife automatically disentitle in claiming interim maintenance. At the most, the Court can say that she cannot get interim maintenance from the date of initiation of the proceedings, but she can get from the date of filing of the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. For the reasons best known to the learned Judge it is observed by relying upon the decision reported in 1994 (1) GLH 78 in case of Sunil Harisbhai Patel v. Mrs. Bijal Sunil Patel that while awarding maintenance, the income and status of the of the parties to be considered. But, thereafter the learned Judge has ignored in discussing this aspect, though the facts were amply available to the Court from the pleadings. 20.11 The learned Judge has also not answered the question as to whether the amount of Rs. 500/- that to from the date of order awarded to petitioner-wife as interim maintenance in a suit filed by her in the year 1995, would be sufficient and would also be used as aid and help in mitigating the expenses of the litigation initiated by the husband. When the learned Judge has accepted referring the decision in case reported in AIR 1999 Bombay 291 in case of Rekha Deepak Mlahotra v. Deepak Jagmohan Malhotra that amount of maintenance should be aid the wife to live in a similar style as she enjoyed in the matrimonial home. When the learned Judge has accepted referring the decision in case reported in AIR 1999 Bombay 291 in case of Rekha Deepak Mlahotra v. Deepak Jagmohan Malhotra that amount of maintenance should be aid the wife to live in a similar style as she enjoyed in the matrimonial home. However, the learned Judge has not answered as to whether without awarding any amount towards the cost of proceedings and by rejecting the prayers to grant interim alimony under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act from the date of application filed by her in the year 1995 and reaches to the conclusion that petitioner-wife is not entitled to maintenance as she is already awarded interim maintenance in a suit filed by her under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption & Maintainable Act. The learned Judge while passing order has committed serious error of law and also committed error in appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case on hand and this error has resulted into injustice. The resultant effect of rejection of application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act in to, would hamper her privilege to mitigate the expenses of litigation initiated by her husband. The husband perhaps was eagerly waiting for some reasonable outcome of the matrimonial dispute, as two children were there with him is the fact situation which may tilt the entire balance of the present litigation in favour of the present petitioner-wife. Ultimately, the maintenance granted under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, subsists upto the termination of the proceedings. The rejection of application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act may have serious impact on her right to get maintenance in the event of passing of a decree of divorce as divorcee. 20.12 The Bombay High Court in case reported in Sageeta Piyush Raj, AIR 1998 Bombay 151 was dealing with a reference made to the learned Bench and was answering the following questions. "1. Whether in proceedings under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, the Court can grant interim maintenance? 2. 20.12 The Bombay High Court in case reported in Sageeta Piyush Raj, AIR 1998 Bombay 151 was dealing with a reference made to the learned Bench and was answering the following questions. "1. Whether in proceedings under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, the Court can grant interim maintenance? 2. Whether if matrimonial proceedings are pending between the parties then an Application for interim maintenance must be made only to the Family Court under the provisions of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act?" 20.12.1 The Bombay High Court while answering the above question has held that Hindu wife can file application for ad-interim maintenance either under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, or under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is held by the learned lower Court in the present case that looking to the facts of those citations and the facts of the present case it appears that the facts of the present case and the facts of the present citation are quite similar . In the present case also, the opponent wife filed application for interim maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act and the said application was allowed. The Civil Court has already awarded ad interim maintenance to the opponent - wife. Hence, the opponent-wife cannot file an application for ad interim maintenance as per Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. So, right to file application under Section 24 of Hindu wife in the year 1998 is found unsustainable. Though on the date of filing of application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act preferred in the divorce suit, no formal orders of interim maintenance was passed below application Exh.5 preferred by the petitioner-wife to grant interim maintenance. Not only that application filed by her praying enhancement in the original amount in the suit filed by her under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, was also pending and no formal finding was recorded in the year 1998. It appears that this is a case where some trick was played by the respondent-husband and lethargy on part of the lower Court at appropriate stage and time has resulted into serious prejudice to the petitioner wife and substantive injustice. It appears that this is a case where some trick was played by the respondent-husband and lethargy on part of the lower Court at appropriate stage and time has resulted into serious prejudice to the petitioner wife and substantive injustice. It is relevant that the matrimonial proceeding initiated by the respondent-husband is a divorce petition for divorce and not the petition under Section 9 of the Conjugal Right. A starving wife if starts working or decides to survive on help of her close relatives in her parental home or decides to engage herself in other job to kill time so that she may not feel depression or frustration, would not by itself make her disentitle to pray for alimony and more particularly the cost of litigation initiated by her husband. The ratio of the decision in the case of Sangeeta Piyush Raj (Supra) is applicable to very less extent in the present case. The Court is inclined to quote the relevant paragraph of the decision in the case of Sangeeta Piyush Raj (Supra). "5. Re : The Second Question : In our view, even if matrimonial proceedings are pending between the parties, it is not the requirement that the application for interim maintenance must be made only to the Family Court under the provisions of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Once we arrive at the conclusion that an application under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act is maintainable during the pendency of the proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act, then, obviously, the result would be that the application for interim maintenance could be filed before the Court dealing with the right arising under provisions of Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. 6. With regard to the provisions of Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act and provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, the apex Court, in the case of Chand Dhawan v. Jawaharlal Dhawan, (1993) 3 SCC 406 , has held that, without affection or disruption of the marital status a Hindu wife sustaining that status can live in separation from her husband, and whether she is living in that state or not, her to maintenance stands preserved in codification under Section 18(1) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. She may also be entitled to relief under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; but this is an alternative measure. The Court clarified that, in a Petition under the Hindu Marriage Act, the Court is empowered to grant interim maintenance; but, in those cases where the marital status is to be affected or disrupted, then the Court would pass orders for maintenance. In other cases, the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act would be applicable. Hence, in our view, even if matrimonial proceedings are pending between the parties in the Family Court, it is not necessary that for getting interim maintenance, an application must be made to the said Court under the provisions of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 7. We, however, make it clear that, once the interim maintenance is granted either under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act or under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, then, there is no question of entertaining the application under the other Act. This would avoid multiplicity of proceedings, because the criteria for awarding maintenance under both the provisions would be the same. 8. Reference stands disposed of accordingly. Reference answered." 20.13 Here, in the present case, as discussed earlier, the wife was not granted interim maintenance from the date of application and no amount of costs was awarded to her, as the same was not prayed for. It further deserves to be noted that judgment relied on by the learned Judge was giving answers to the questions referred to the larger Bench. The facts of that case are not reflected in the judgment and that has led the learned lower Court to deliver incorrect decision. 20.14 Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, specifically provides for expenses pendente lite. How, the petitioner-wife is not even entitled to has not been answered by the learned lower Court and the decision of the Bombay High Court in case of Sangeeta Piyush Raj (Supra) does not deal with this aspect as no formal question was in this regard referred to the larger Bench. How, the petitioner-wife is not even entitled to has not been answered by the learned lower Court and the decision of the Bombay High Court in case of Sangeeta Piyush Raj (Supra) does not deal with this aspect as no formal question was in this regard referred to the larger Bench. So, the learned lower Court was supposed to deal with this aspect in detail and reasonable assumptions could have been drawn by the learned lower Court that as to what amount petitioner-wife may have spent in all throughout the ten years in the litigation initiated by her husband and what amount petitioner-wife needs to spend in the litigation, as she has to engage the lawyer, making arrangement for witnesses, to pay court fees and stamp fees which are inevitable in the present day litigation. 20.15 The learned lower Court ought to have awarded interim maintenance of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) from the date of filing of the application i.e. at least of the application below Exh.5 of petitioner-wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, and Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred Only) from 01/01/2005 till the termination of the matrimonial proceeding keeping in mind the status of the petitioner-wife and respondent-husband being a member of higher middle class family, their education qualifications and the monthly income of the respondent-husband. It was possible for the Court to observe accepting the ratio of the Bombay High Court in case of Sangeeta Piyush Raj (Supra) that the petitioner-wife is entitled to interim maintenance in one proceeding and not under both. The proceeding initiated under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act and proceeding initiated under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act can legitimate recover the amount of interim maintenance in any one proceedings, as the petitioner-wife is not entitled to have interim maintenance under both the provisions. This is not a case of simultaneous institution of proceedings by the petitioner - wife and claim of maintenance by petitioner-wife in both the proceedings simultaneously, otherwise petitioner-wife could have been denied right to claim maintenance in both the litigation initiated by her. This is not a case of simultaneous institution of proceedings by the petitioner - wife and claim of maintenance by petitioner-wife in both the proceedings simultaneously, otherwise petitioner-wife could have been denied right to claim maintenance in both the litigation initiated by her. 20.16 It is necessary to mention here that though there is no formal discussion as to the income of the respondent-husband nor the probable minimum expenditure that petitioner-wife may incur in maintaining herself being a member of higher middle class family, the Court can look into the pleadings of the parties and one uncontroverted fact that respondent-husband is an engineer drawing a salary of Rs. 10,000/- per month from the reputed company viz., Zenith Fiber, the amount minimum to the above of awarded amount, requires to be granted and therefore while allowing this petition this Court has decided to pass the order as aforesaid. 20.17 The learned Judge has referred one document i.e. pay slip mark 46/1, but has not mentioned the figure of monthly salary and has also not discussed as to how Rs. 500/- per month as interim maintenance is granted as adequate amount, that too from the date of passing of the order. 20.18 The affidavit in reply filed by the respondent-husband deals with other liability of the respondent-husband, more particularly, two children are staying with him and old mother aged about 75 years. The said affidavit is of 05/09/2006, however the respondent-husband has not disclosed the age of both children and their capacity to earn. The affidavit does not speak as to whether the son has started earning, as well as, about the status of the father. This Court is afraid that father of the respondent may be there and therefore only the respondent has not mentioned in paragraph 10 of the reply affidavit that he is the only person under obligation to maintain his widow mother. 20.19 Considering the incurring of minimum and possible expenditure in a litigation initiated by the respondent-husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the petitioner-wife ought to have been awarded cost of litigation i.e. expenses of proceedings and she can be awarded this amount in this head while dealing with the petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is not necessary for the Court to relegate the petitioner-wife to the trial Court again that she may file a formal application to get the expenses in the proceedings initiated by her husband, because it would lead to multiplicity and complexity in the proceeding. 20.20 The petition being SCA No.12530 of 2006 is partly allowed. The order dated 10/05/2006 passed below Application Exh.24 in Hindu Marriage Petition No.148 of 1995 passed by the learned IInd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara is hereby quashed and set aside. Keeping in mind the totality, facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the view that the respondent-husband can be directed to pay to petitioner-wife Rs. 10,000/- towards the cost of litigation initiated by her husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and it is therefore directed that respondent-husband shall pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) to petitioner wife towards the cost of litigation within one month from today. It is clarified that petitioner-wife is entitled to Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) as expenses in the proceeding over and above the amount of interim maintenance. The execution in maintenance suit would be more appropriate. 20.21 It is clarified that the petitioner-wife shall be entitled to recover the amount of interim maintenance in only one proceeding, if she is compelled to file execution petition for recovery of those amount. In another words, the amount of interim maintenance shall be adjusted at the time of calculating the amount of arrears and payable to the petitioner-wife as interim maintenance in the proceeding between the parties. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. 20.22 Before parting with the order it is necessary to clarify that the respondent-husband can be permitted to clear up the arrears of interim maintenance awarded by this Court calculating his liability after adjusting the amount already paid by him under the orders of maintenance passed in the suit filed under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, to avoid inconvenience and hardship. It is, therefore, ordered that respondent-husband shall clear up the amount of arrears within six months from the date of order and shall pay the cost of divorce proceeding within one month from today, otherwise the petitioner-wife is entitled to initiate recovery proceeding by filing formal execution petition and she can also pray for stay of the suit filed by the respondent-husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act or any other appropriate action for which she may be legitimately entitled to. Ordered accordingly.