- (1.) S. R. Singh, J. Heard counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner urged that since the petitioner has filed a petition for restitution of conjugal right, the respondent wife cannot claim pendente lite maintenance under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act. He further urged that the respondent-wife has, without any reasonable excuse, withdrawn herself from the society of the petitioner since last four years and is living with her parents. As such, urged the learned counsel for the peti tioner, the 2nd respondent was not entitled to maintenance under Section 24. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Chand Dhavan (Smt) v. Jawahar Dhavan, (1993) 3 SCC 406. Having heard the counsel for the petitioner, I find no substance in the submissions aforestated. Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is applicable to "any proceeding under this Act" including the proceeding for restitution of conjugal right. The decision cited by the learned counsel may be relevant to the question of grant of permanent alimony and maintenance, but it has no application to the claim by wife under Section 24 for maintenance of pendente lite and expenses of proceedings. Under the said provision wife can get maintenance and psndente lite expenses of proceeding in case it is proved that she has no independent income sufficient for her. . . . support". No other point was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed. .;