S.C. Jain, J.
1. Facts giving rise to this revision petition are that in an application filed by the husband, hereinafter referred to as the respondent, under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act against Smt. Rajeshwari Prasad, hereinafter referred to as the petitioner, an application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the wife for her maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses and for maintenance of her minor child Master Saurabh Mani, petitioner No. 2. The Addl. District Judge vide his order dated 7.8.87 awarded Rs. 600/- per month as alimony pendents lite to the wife, Rs. 400/- as maintenance for the minor son who is petitioner No. 2 and Rs. 1100/- as litigation expenses. The review application moved by the respondent against that order was dismissed. His revision C.R. 58/88 filed in the High Court was also dismissed on 19.4.1988.
2. The petitioner wife then moved the Addl. District Judge for enhancement of the maintenance Pendente lite on the plea that the salary of the husband had considerably increased. The husband also moved an application in that very Court for reduction of the maintenance pendente lite taking all those pleas which he had taken in the review application and the civil revision petition. Both those applications were disposed of by Shri S.N. Dhingra, Addl. District Judge, by a common order dated 25.11.1989 and he reduced the alimony pendente lite of the wife to Rs. 150/ per month and that of the child to Rs. 300/- per month. :
3. Aggrieved, the wife and the child have moved the present revision petition.
4. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record. None appeared for the respondent.
5. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the Addl. District Judge shows that while deciding this application he took into account all those pleas which the husband had taken in his review application and the civil revision petition against the order of maintenance dated 7.8.87. The Addl. District Judge not only took into consideration the amount of Rs. 1200/- supposed to be incurred by the husband for taking another house on rent which has not even been pleaded by the husband in his application for reduction- of the amount of maintenance, but the Addl. District Judge also took into account the supposed rental income of the wife from her house in Vaishali, Palam Road, The learned Addl. District Judge lost sight of the fact that all these pleas were taken by the husband in his review petition and the civil revision petition which were ultimately dismissed. He also lost sight of the fact that the husband surrendered the allotment of the Govt. accommodation to the Director of Estate just to throw away the wife from those premises and in collusion and connivance with the officers of the Estate officer he got passed an eviction order in respect of those premises under the Public Premises Act. It is apparent that it was on account of intervention by the High Court in the writ petition that the dispossession was stayed. The order of the Addl. District Judge dated 25.11.1989 reducing the maintenance of the wife and the child cannot be said to be justified and legal. The wife has also not been able to make out any case for enhancement of the maintenance for herself and the child. The order passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is an interim order passed during the pendency of the divorce proceedings and no finality can be attached to such type of orders. In these circumstances, I accept this revision petition and set aside the impugned order dated 25.11.1989 passed by the Addl. District Judge. The order of the Addl. District Judge passed on 7.8.87 awarding Rs. 600/- to the wife and Rs. 400/- to the child shall continue.