ORDER C.R. Sarma, J. 1. Heard Ms. P. Ghosh, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant-applicant and Mr. H. Debnath, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent-opposite party. 2. By this application, filed under Sections 24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Appellant-applicant, Smti Reema Sinha @ Singha who is the wife of the Respondent-opposite party, Sri Pankaj Singha, has prayed for granting maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings. The Appellant-applicant has claimed Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only per month as maintenance pendente lite and Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) only as expenses of proceedings from her said husband, i.e. the Respondent-opposite party, on the ground that she does not have independent income to support herself and to meet the expenses of the proceedings. 3. The Appellant-applicant's case, in brief, may be stated as follows: On 10.06.2006, the Appellant-applicant was married by the Respondent-opposite party as per Hindu rites and customs and, thereafter, they used to live as husband and wife in her marital house. According to the Appellant-applicant, after her marriage, she was tortured by her husband and the members of his family, demanding Rs. 3 lakhs from her parents for the purpose of establishing a grill factory. On 10.07.2007, as the Appellant-applicant had given birth to a female child, out of the said wed-lock, the opposite party and the members of his family, being upset and dissatisfied, continued to harass the Appellant-applicant, torturing her both mentally and physically. Due to failure of the Appellant-applicant to meet the demand of Rs. 3 lakhs as aforesaid, the opposite party had driven her out from the marital home in the month of January, 2009, keeping the child in his custody. Therefore, the Appellant-applicant, having no alternative, was compelled to take shelter in the house of her parents. As the Appellant-applicant did not have any independent income for her support, she filed a case under Section125 Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking maintenance allowance from her husband i.e. the opposite party. In the said petition, which was registered as T.S. (RCR) 212/2009, the Appellant-applicant stated that she was willing to live with her husband and as such prayed for a decree for restitution of her conjugal life under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 1955. The claim of the Appellant-applicant was contested and denied, by the opposite party, by filing written statement. 1955. The claim of the Appellant-applicant was contested and denied, by the opposite party, by filing written statement. The Appellant-applicant examined four witnesses in support of her case, while the opposite party examined five witnesses in support of his plea. The learned trial Judge, vide judgment and order, dated 22.02.2010, passed in T.S. (RCR) 212/2009, rejected the Appellant-applicant's prayer for restitution of conjugal life and the claim for maintenance allowance, on the ground that she had deserted her marital home without any reason. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, dated 22.02.2010, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, West Tripura, Agartala, in Title Suit (RCR) 212 of 2009, the Appellant-applicant has preferred an appeal, under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 22.02.2010 aforesaid. The said appeal, preferred by the Appellant-applicant, has already been admitted for hearing. 4. By filing the present application under Sections 24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in the said appeal, the Appellant-applicant has prayed for maintenance pendente lite @ Rs. 5,000/- per month and Rs. 15,000/- being the expenses of the proceedings. The Appellant-applicant's contention is that, she has no independent income to maintain herself and to meet the expenses of the proceeding and that she is dependent on the pension of his retired father, who is also required to maintain his family consisting of four members. She further contended that her husband i.e. the opposite party is a businessman having a rice mill, a grill factory and 20 kanies of paddy land. It has further been averred, in her application aforesaid, that the opposite party has recently joined in a Company and has been drawing a handsome salary. According to the Appellant-applicant, the total monthly income of the opposite party is Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 18,000/-. 5. The Appellant-applicant's claim for maintenance and expenses of proceeding has been contested, by the opposite party, by filing a written objection. In his written objection, the opposite party, while denying the Appellant-applicant's contentions, that he is having a rice mill, a grill factory, 20 kanies of paddy land and job and that his monthly income was Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 18,000/-, states that the said contentions are imaginary and that he is fully dependent on the income of his father. In his written objection, the opposite party, while denying the Appellant-applicant's contentions, that he is having a rice mill, a grill factory, 20 kanies of paddy land and job and that his monthly income was Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 18,000/-, states that the said contentions are imaginary and that he is fully dependent on the income of his father. The opposite party further contends that his monthly income, as a commission agent of a private financial organization, is Rs. 2,000/- only and that except the said amount he has no other source of income. According to the opposite party, the Appellant-applicant has been earning some money from private tuition and that she is capable of maintaining herself. In her application, supported by an affidavit, the Appellant-applicant categorically stated that the opposite party used to earn Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 18,000/- per month from his rice mill, grill factory, paddy land and private job. Contesting the said contention, though the opposite party stated that the monthly income was Rs. 2,000/-, he did not state the precise amount, if any, earned by the Appellant-applicant. His statement that she earned from private tuition, without mentioning the amount so earned, was a vague one. The Appellant-applicant clearly stated that she had no independent income to maintain herself and to meet the expenses of legal proceedings. Admittedly, the Appellant-applicant is the married wife of the opposite party. Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which reads as follows, provides the provision for granting maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings. 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. 6. At this stage, the said contention of the Appellant-applicant remains unshaken, inspiring confidence to believe that she has no independent income for her support and to meet the necessary expenses of the legal proceedings. 6. At this stage, the said contention of the Appellant-applicant remains unshaken, inspiring confidence to believe that she has no independent income for her support and to meet the necessary expenses of the legal proceedings. Therefore, in view of the above statutory provision, she is entitled to get maintenance pendente lite and expenses of the proceedings. The opposite party, who denied to have possessed a rice mill, a grill factory and landed property as alleged by the Appellant-applicant, in his written objection, Stated that he was the only son of his parents and that the 'Anna Prashan' of his daughter was performed widely, in which, number of invitees had attended and enjoyed the said ceremony. Performing of the 'Anna Prashan' of his darter in a befitting manner, indicates that his financial condition is sound That apart, the performance of the 'Anna Prashan', inviting many guests, implies the high standard maintained by the opposite party and as such the Appellant-applicant, being the house wife of the opposite party, is also entitled to live, maintaining the same standard of life. Though the opposite party has produced a certificate, from M/s Waris Finance International Ltd., under whom, he has been working as a commission agent, to show that he used to earn approximately Rs. 2,000/- per month as commission, the said income can't be held to be his sole income. The word 'approximately', used in the said Certificate, implies that there is no outer limit of his monthly income from the said source. In order to negate the Appellant-applicants' contention, that he has other sources like rice mill, grill factory and landed property, the opposite party ought to have either adduced oral or produced documentary evidence, in nature of Certificate from the local authority. But, for reasons, best known to him, the opposite party failed to do so. Therefore, under the facts and circumstances of the case, at this stage, it appears that the opposite party has sufficient means to support the Appellant-applicant. There is nothing on record regarding physical and mental disability indicating that the opposite party-husband was handicapped to earn and support his wife. 7. In the light of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that this is a fit case to grant maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings. There is nothing on record regarding physical and mental disability indicating that the opposite party-husband was handicapped to earn and support his wife. 7. In the light of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that this is a fit case to grant maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings. Therefore, keeping in mind the minimum requirement of a lady, for her living with dignity in the society and the present days' expenditure towards litigation, we direct the opposite party-husband to pay pendente lite maintenance allowance @ Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) only per month from the date of filing of the application and pay Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) only as expenses of proceedings. The amount, aforementioned shall be paid within 1 (one) month from the date of this order. 8. Accordingly, with the above direction, the C.M. Application is allowed. Application allowed