Milan Dayarambhai Thakkar vs Niti Pravinbhai Buddhdev on 13 November, 2006
13. I have also considered the facts and circumstances of the case in this behalf. I have also relied upon the judgment in the case Jyotiben Samir Pawar v. Smir Bhaskarro Pawar (Particularly para 12)
In my view that right of the wife for maintenance is an incident of the status or estate of matrimony. In general, therefore, the husband is bound to defray the wife's casts of any proceedings under the Act and to provide for her maintenance and support pending the disposal of such proceedings. The doctrine of alimony, which expression in this strict sense means allowance due to wife from husband or separation from certain causes, has its basis in social conditions in England under which a married woman was economically dependent and also in a position of tutelage to the husband and was intended to secure justice to her while prosecuting or defending proceedings under matrimonial law. In my view, in view of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the decision rendered above that the law relating to matrimonial causes provides for rules for payment of maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings by the Marriage Act adopts those principles and goes one radical step further when it prescribes that any such order can be made not only in favour of the wife but also in favour of the husband.