JUDGMENT
A.P. Chowdhri, J.
1. The respondent Smt. Jasbir Kaur has filed a petition under Section 11 read with Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the petitioner Jit Singh, seeking a declaration by a decree of nullity that her marriage with the petitioner was void on the ground that the petitioner’s spouse, with whom he was married earlier, was living and the marriage between two subsisted. During the pendency of the said petition, the respondent-wife made an application under under section 24 of the Act for litigation expenses and maintenance pendents lite. It was alleged that from the marriage with the petitioner a son Was born to her on August 25, 1989, and he was dependent on the applicant. It was further stated that she had no independent source of income. According to her, the husband was employed in M. E. S. and was getting a salary of Rs, 3,000/- per month besides additional income of Rs. 2,000/- from land and rent. She had paid Rs. 5,700/- as fee to the lawyer. She claimed Rs. 7,000/- as litigation expenses and Rs. 3,000/- as maintenance for herself and her minor son.
2. The application was resisted by the husband. He alleged that he had to maintain two children from his first wife Smt. Pritpal Kaur, being a son and a daughter, aged 15 and 7 respectively. He denied income from sources other than his service.
3. The learned trial Court held that the applicant-wife had no independent source of Income. On the basis of certificate of income granted by the employer, it was held that the husband’s emoluments were Rs. 2,758/-. It was further held that the wife and the minor child were entitled to about 1/3rd by way of maintenance. Accordingly, the maintenance allowed to the wife was fixed at Rs. 900/- and Rs. 200/- for the child. Further, litigation expenses amounting to Rs. 6,500/- were also ordered to be paid. The husband has assailed the order in this revision petition.,
4. The wife appeared in response to notice of motion. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and the revision petition is being disposed of at the motion stage.
5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the wife having herself pleaded that her marriage with Jit Singh was void, she was not entitled to any maintenance. Reliance was placed on Bakulabai and Anr. v. Ganga Ram and Anr., 1988 (1) Recent C. R. 304 (S.C.), in which it was held that where marriage of a Hindu woman was void on account of contravention of Section 5(i) of the Act, such a woman was not entitled to maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to the learned counsel for the husband, the analogy of the above decision would disentitle the wife from claiming maintenance pendente lite. The second submission of the learned counsel is that having regard to the income of the husband, the amount awarded was highly excessive.
6. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the wife is that the wife is entitled to maintenance pendente lite and the amount awarded by the learned trial Court was fair and reasonable.
7. It may be stated at once that second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage is void by virtue of Section 5 of the Act but either party to such a marriage is entitled to present a petition for the marriage to be declared a nullity. This is specifically provided in section 11 of the Act itself. It may be further pointed out that Section 24 of the Act covers within its sweep any proceeding under the aforesaid Act. The point of significance is that on the one hand section 24 relating to pendente lite expenses expressly refers to “any proceeding” under the Act on the other hand, no exception has been made therein excluding a proceeding under section 11 of the Act. There is, thus, no manner of doubt that even in proceedings under section 11, seeking a decree declaring the marriage to be nullity is also a proceeding under the Act, to which section 24 applies. The analogy of the decision of the Supreme Court in Bakulabai’s case (supra) is not applicable. The provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the one hand, and section 24 of the Act, on the other hand, are not in pan materia With each other.
8. On the basis of the figures mentioned by the trial Court in the impugned order, the total emoluments of the husband, according to the salary certificate, are Rs. 2,758/-. There are various deductions amounting to Rs. 1,330/-. The carry home salary, therefore, works out to Rs. 1428/- and 1/3rd of that amount would work out to Rs. 496/- which may be rounded off to Rs. 500/-. Even otherwise, counting the husband as one unit, two minor children from the previous marriage as one unit, and taking each minor child to be half unit, and the present respondent as the other unit, the salary may be reasonably divided into three units and the share of the respondent works out to Rs. 500/-.
9. In my view, the grant of litigation expenses of Rs. 6500/- is highly excessive in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The main reason which appears to have prevailed with the learned trial Court in fixing the amount of litigation expenses is a certificate from the lawyer having charged a certain fee. The statutory guideline provided in fixing the pendente lite expenses which would include maintenance as well as litigation expenses is the amount which seems to the Court to be reasonable. This is so provided in Section 24 itself. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the revision petition is partly allowed and the amount of litigation expenses is reduced to Rs. 2500/- and the amount of maintenance, reduced to Rs. 500/- both for the wife as well as her minor child per month This amount shall be payable from the date of the application under section 24 of the Act. The revision petition is disposed of in these terms.
10. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear in the trial Court for further proceedings according to law on January 24.
11. The interim order dated November 12,1991, requiring the payment of the specified amount, on the wife furnishing a security stands superseded by this order and the amount ordered above shall be payable without furnishing any security