J. V. Gupta, J. - (1.) The petitioner-husband filed the petition for restitution of coniugal rights under Sec. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the Act). During the pendency of the said petition, an application under section 24 of the Act, was filed on behalf of the respondent-wife, for the grant of the maintenance pendente lite for herself and her minor son. That application was opposed by the petitioner. The trial Court vide impugned order dated March 6, 1986, allowed a sum of Rs. 150 per month by way of maintenance pendente lite, and Rs. 200.00 as litigation expenses, from the date of the application, i e , Nov. 15, 1985. In the petition under section 9 of the Act, on March 31, 1986, the Court passed the following order : "Petitioner/husband Sukhdeep Singh has not appeared to pay the litigation expenses and maintenance. Shri Avtar Singh wants to make a statement. Let his statement be recorded." The said Avtar Singh made the statement that very day to the effect that his client Sukhdeep Singh had not come to the Court. Thereafter, that day, the Court passed the following order - "Shri Avtar Singh has made a statement that the petitioner Sukhdeep has not appeared in the Court. The perusal of the previous order goes to show that the payment of litigation expenses and maintenance was a condition for furtherance of the petition. So, the petitioner/husband has failed to pay the amount and thus committed default. Thus the petition is dismissed. Announced. File be consigned." Aggrieved against the order, dated 6-3-86 the petitioner has come up in revision to this Court.
(2.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this revision petition.
(3.) While disposing of the application under section 24 of the Act, the trial Court has observed that the only son is residing with his mother, (the respondent) and no effort has been made on behalf of the father (the petitioner) to take his custody. Thus, even if the mother is having independent income, she is entitled to maintenance ad litem for the son and litigation expenses Therefore, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order as to be interfered with under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code.;