A.P. Ravani, J.
1. The Opponent-husband filed H.M.P. No. 35 of 1983 in the court of learned Assistant Judge, Mehsana for dissolution of the marriage inter aila on the ground of desertion. The applicant of this revision application appeared in the said petition and filed an application Exh. 10 under the provisions of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and prayed for interim maintenance at the rate of Rs, 500/- per month for herself and Rs. 200/- per month for her daughter Raksha. She also prayed that an amount of Rs. 1500/- be also ordered to be paid to meet with the litigation expenses. The trial Court after discussing the rival contentions raised by the parties, dismissed the application as per its order dated March 7, 1984. The trial court has rejected the application solely on the ground that the petitioner's father has died and he has left 15 vighas of land and a residential house and a wade in which the petitioner a' so has one-half share along with her widowed mother Hiraben. The trial court has referred to the various documents of revenue records which are produced on record and has ultimately come to the conclusion that the petitioner will have one-half share in agricultural land admeasuring 18 Hector and 16 Acre and therefore the petitioner is the owner of 4 Hector and 8 Acre. Having regard to this circumstance, the trial court rejected the application for interim alimony. Now, Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act reads as follows:
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 the petitioner own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the court to be reasonable.
2. The important words have been underlined. The underlying object of Section 24 of vMhe Act is to provide for the expenses as well as to maintain himself or herself, during the pendency of the proceedings. Simply because the petitioner-wife has got one-half share in the agricultural land, it cannot be said that she receives income from the produce thereof. In fact, there is no finding to the effect that the applicant receives income from the agricultural land which she has inherited from her father after his death. There is no evidence to show that she has any income to support herself. It is one thing to be a co-owner in an agricultural land and it is another thing to be able to receive income therefrom. It does not appear to have been contended by the other side that the petitioner-wife is, as a matter of fact, receiving income or that she is capable of receiving income from the agricultural land in question. Thus, the trial court has grossly erred in rejecting the application only on the basis that the petitioner-wife has inherited some agricultural land along with her mother. It also appears from the averments made by the petitioner-wife in the application that the opponent-husband is owning about 70 vighas of land. At any rate, it cannot be controverted that the opponent husband is having substantial income from the agricultural land and there is no reason to doubt the word of the petitioner-wife in this connection. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case, the following order is passed.
3. The order passed by the trial court is quashed and set aside. Application Exh. 10 in H.M.P. No. 35 of 1983 is ordered to be allowed. The opponent-husband y is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 300/- per month to the petitioner-wife as and by way of interim maintenance and an amount of Rs. 150/- per month to minor daughter Raksha as and by way of maintenance. In all the opponent-husband is directed to pay Rs. 450/- per month from the date of application, i.e. 15-9-1983. The opponent-husband is also directed to pay Rs. 1000/- to the petitioner-wife to meet the expenses of the litigation. The revision application is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.