JUDGMENT : MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J. 1. Heard Ms. M. D. Medhi, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. R. Borooah, the learned Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent No.1. 2. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Jurmoloy Rajkhowa, impugning the order dated 21.02.2025, passed in Misc.(J) Case No.43/2024, by the learned Court of the Additional District Judge No.3, Nagaon, in connection with the Matrimonial (D) Case No. 7/2023. By the impugned order, the petitioner was directed to pay an interim maintenance of Rs.4000/- per month as well as Rs.15,000/- as a cost of the proceedings to the respondent during the pendency of the Matrimonial (D) Case No. 7/2023. 3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant Civil Revision Petition are that the present petitioner is the husband of the respondent and he had filed the Matrimonial (D) Case No. 7/2023 before the Court of the learned Additional District Judge No.3, Nagaon under Section 13(1)(i-a)(i-b) of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955 against the respondent for desolution of his marriage with the respondent. 4. In the said case, the respondent had filed an application under Section 24 of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955 praying for pendente lite maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month as well Rs.15,000/- as expenses of the proceeding. By the impugned order, the Trial Court had allowed the application filed by the respondent under Section 24 of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955 by directing the present petitioner to pay a pendente lite maintenance amounting to Rs. 4,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- towards expenses of proceeding. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had filed another case under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 which has been registered as DV Case No.108/2019. In the said case, the present petitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 6,000/- in the total (Rs. 2,000/- each per month to the respondent and her two sons) which the petitioner claims to be regularly paying. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent is presently working as Anganwadi worker. She also submits that the petitioner is unemployed person and does not have any income of his own. 6,000/- in the total (Rs. 2,000/- each per month to the respondent and her two sons) which the petitioner claims to be regularly paying. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent is presently working as Anganwadi worker. She also submits that the petitioner is unemployed person and does not have any income of his own. The learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that in view of the fact that as the respondent has independent income sufficient for her as well as for necessary expenses of the divorce proceedings, the Trial Court had erred in passing the impugned order by which the pendente lite maintenance and expenses of divorce proceedings were granted to the respondent. 7. She further submits that the parents of the petitioner were service holder and the respondent by fraudulently forged the signatures of her mother in law had misappropriated Rs. 68,00,000/- from the account of her mother in law and in this regard a PRC Case has been registered before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kaliabor as PRC Case No. 125/2020. She has further submitted that the educational expenses of both the sons of the respondent is borne by the parent of the petitioner. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in his affidavit of assets and liabilities submitted before the Trial Court the petitioner has categorically stated in details of his income that he does not have any source of income and is entirely dependent on his parents. She also submits that the respondent apart from getting interim maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- for herself and her two children, also admittedly earns an amount of Rs. 4,500/-. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the Trial Court erred in concluding that the aforesaid amount would not be sufficient for her maintenance as well as for the expenses of divorce proceeding. She submits that the present respondent’s case is defended in the Trial Court by a Legal Aid Counsel and, therefore, she does not have to spent anything in pursuing the divorce case filed by the present petitioner. 10. In support of her submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the following rulings of the Apex Court: i. Manokaran @ Ramamurthy Vs. M. Devki reported in 2003 0 Supreme (Mad) 246 ; ii. Kumaresa Vs. 10. In support of her submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the following rulings of the Apex Court: i. Manokaran @ Ramamurthy Vs. M. Devki reported in 2003 0 Supreme (Mad) 246 ; ii. Kumaresa Vs. Aswathy reported in 2002 0 Supreme (Mad) 455. 11. On the other hand, Mr. K. R. Borooah, the learned Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent No.1 has submitted that the Trial Court has correctly passed the impugned order as though the respondent is working as an Anganwadi helper she is only getting an amount of Rs. 4,500/- as remuneration which is not sufficient for her support and for necessary expenses of the divorce proceeding. 12. He further submits that the Trial Court while granting the pendente lite maintenance to the respondent as taken into consideration the fact that an amount of Rs. 6,000/- was awarded by the Court in the proceeding under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which is apparent from the impugned order. 13. He submits that though, the present petitioner has claimed that he is unemployed however, the Trial Court rightly took into consideration the fact that he is an able body person and is liable to maintain his wife and his children. He further submits that the Trial Court has rightly directed the present petitioner to pay the pendente lite maintenance as well as expenses of litigation and the impugned order does not warrant any interference by this Court. He, however, has not opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent wife also was provided with the services of the Legal Aid Counsel by the trial court. 14. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on record. 15. He, however, has not opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent wife also was provided with the services of the Legal Aid Counsel by the trial court. 14. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on record. 15. The impugned order has been passed in connection with an application filed by the respondent under Section 24 of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955, which provides that in any proceedings under the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT it appears to Court that either the wife or the husband as the case may be has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on an application of the wife or husband, order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding and such monthly sum, as having regards to the petitioner’s own income and the income of the respondent, which may seem to the Court to be reasonable. 16. The Court considering an application under Section 24 of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT is required to take into consideration the income of the parties and the paying capacity of the respondent. Another relevant aspect is the sufficiency of the independent income of the respondent for his or her support and to bear the expenses of the proceedings. 17. In the instant case, the Trial Court while considering the capacity of the present petitioner to pay the pendente lite maintenance and expenses of the proceedings took into consideration that the present petitioner, though unemployed, is an able body person and he is under obligation to maintain his wife and children even though, they are living separately due to some matrimonial discord. It also appears that while awarding Rs. 4,000/- as pendente lite maintenance amount, which in no terms can be regarded as an excessive amount, the trial court took into consideration, the maintenance allowance already awarded by a different court in the proceeding under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The reasoning given by the Trial Court in granting the pendente lite maintenance does not appear to be arbitrary or that the order was passed beyond jurisdiction, justifying any interference by this court. The reasoning given by the Trial Court in granting the pendente lite maintenance does not appear to be arbitrary or that the order was passed beyond jurisdiction, justifying any interference by this court. However, as regards the grant of expenses of the legal proceedings is concerned, since, the learned counsel for both the parties have submitted that the respondent was provided with free legal aid by the trial court, it may not be appropriate to grant any amount against expenses for legal proceedings without any proper justification for the same. 18. For the aforesaid reasons, this Civil Revision Petition (IO) is partly allowed to the extent of setting aside the impugned order in as much as it had directed grant of the expenses of legal proceedings to the respondent. However, this Court finds no justification for interfering with the impugned order so far as it has directed the petitioner to pay interim maintenance amount of Rs. 4,000/- per month to the respondent. 19. This Civil Revision Petition (IO) is, accordingly, partly allowed to the extent indicated in the foregoing paragraphs.