JUDGMENT 1. - Aggrieved by the order dated 26-3-2010, passed by District Judge Sikar, whereby the learned Judge has allowed the application filed by respondent under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('the Act' for short), the appellant has approached this court. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant husband and respondent wife were married on 30-3-2004 according to Hindu rites and customs. Till 2007, no differences had arisen between the two. However, according to the wife, from 2007 she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty for dowry demands. Unable to bear the torture meted out to her, she lodged a FIR for the offence under section 498-A IPC against the appellant. Ever since then, she has been residing at her parental place. Initially the appellant moved an application under Section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights. However, vide order dated 15-4-2009, the said application was dismissed. Thereafter, the appellant has filed a divorce petition against the respondent under section 13 of the Act. During pendency of the divorce proceedings, the respondent filed an application under section 24 of the Act seeking maintenance pendente lite and expenses of the proceedings. After hearing both the parties, the learned Judge granted maintenance of Rs. 2,500/- each to respondent, and to her son, Vaibhav. The amount of maintenance was to be paid from 5-1-2010. Since the order was passed on 25-3-2010, the arrears of two months were directed to be paid immediately; it was also directed that the maintenance amount shall be paid by the appellant by 6th day of each month. He further directed that Rs. 5000/- shall be paid as a lump sum expenses for the proceedings. Hence, this appeal before this court. 3. Mr. R.D.S. Naruka, the learned counsel for the appellant, has vehemently contended that in her application the respondent did not seek any maintenance, and she merely sought Rs. 300/- on each date for appearing before the court. Therefore, the learned Judge was not justified in granting Rs. 5000/- per month with effect from 5-1-2010. Secondly, since the appellant is to maintain his aged parents, and two unmarried sisters, the maintenance of Rs. 5000/- is too burdensome. Therefore, the maintenance amount should be reduced. 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order. 5. Section 24 of the Act, reads as under:- 24. 5000/- per month with effect from 5-1-2010. Secondly, since the appellant is to maintain his aged parents, and two unmarried sisters, the maintenance of Rs. 5000/- is too burdensome. Therefore, the maintenance amount should be reduced. 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order. 5. Section 24 of the Act, reads as under:- 24. Maintenance pendente lite and expenses of 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; Provided that the application for the payment of the expenses of the proceeding and such monthly sum during the proceeding, shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of service of notice on the wife or the husband, as the case may be. A bare perusal of Section 24 of the Act, clearly reveals that it can be divided into two parts. While first part deals with expenses for the proceedings to be granted, the second part deals with monthly maintenance during the proceedings to which the party is entitled to. 6. A bare perusal of the application filed by respondent clearly reveals that in her application she had clearly stated that she has been living with her parents since 11-3-2007. She has further claimed that she is presently studying as a 3rd year law student at Government Law College, Sikar. Due to her studies, she is unable to earn. Hence, she is unable to look-after herself, and her child. She further claimed that her husband, the appellant, is employed in Railway Protection Force at Regus in District Sikar. She further claimed that he is earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. Therefore, she prayed that both the maintenance pendente lite, and expenses for the proceedings should be granted to her. 7. A perusal of the application clearly reveals that the respondent sought the relief for the maintenance pendente lite and for expenses during the proceeding. She further claimed that he is earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. Therefore, she prayed that both the maintenance pendente lite, and expenses for the proceedings should be granted to her. 7. A perusal of the application clearly reveals that the respondent sought the relief for the maintenance pendente lite and for expenses during the proceeding. Considering the fact that she has to maintain both herself, and her child, considering the fact that the appellant is earning Rs. 15,000/- per month, a maintenance of Rs. 5000/- for both the wife, and the child is not an unreasonable amount. Moreover, the direction of granting a lump sum amount Rs. 5000/- for the expenses of the proceeding is equally not an unreasonable amount. 8. The argument that the appellant has aged parents, and two unmarried sisters, does not come to the rescue of the appellant. For, it is equally his duty to maintain his wife, whom he had married legally, and to maintain his child, whom he got during the wedlock. Therefore, this Court does not find anything illegal or perverse in the impugned order. 9. Hence, this appeal is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******