Smt. Kamlesh Arora vs Jugal Kishore Arora

District Judge, Bhiwani, dated 1st of March, 1989, whereby in an application u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), no maintenance pendente lite was allowed to the wife and a sum of Rs. 1,000/-was granted as litigation expenses.

The Learned counsel for the wife-petitioner submitted that as a matter of fact application u/s 24 of the Act was filed for grant of maintenance to the minor daughter who was living with her mother but the learned Distric Judge did not grant any maintenance for the minor daughter and declined the same to the wife on the ground that she was herself an earning hand. According to the learned counsel, in an application under S. 24 of the Act even a minor child is entitled to the maintenance pendente lite. In support of this contention, he referred to Smt. Usha v. Sudhir Kumar 1975 H LR 1; Chand Gupta (Smt.) v. Adarsh Pal Gupta (1986) 1 H LR 460 (Punj & Har); Pushpa Devi v. Om Parkash (1985) 2 H LR 327; D. Thimmappa Vs. R. Nagaveni, ) and Gulab Chand Vs. Sampati Devi, .

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-husband submitted that in application under S. 24 of the Act, maintenance pendente lite would be granted to the wife only and not to the minor child. Since the wife was herself an earning hand, she was not allowed any maintenance. In support of his contention, he referred to Mohan Singh v. Smt. Pushpa Devi 197S H LR 586; Dr. Rajinder Kumar Batta v. Dr. Kama Kumari 1979 H LR 443 and Akasam Chinna Babu Vs. Akasam Parbati and Another, .

In Smt. Usha v. Sudhir Kumar (1975 H LR 1) (supra), a Division Bench judgment of this Court, it was held that--

"There is not doubt that under S. 24 of the Act the child cannot claim maintenance and it is only either of the two spouses who can make a claim. At the same time, it is clear that a claim can be made for maintenance of a child during a proceeding under the Act and the Court can in exercise of powers vested in it by S. 26 of the Act pass such interim orders in any proceeding under the Act, from time to time, as it may deem just and proper with respect to the maintenance and education of minor children, consistently with their wishes, wherever possible."

In view of the Division Bench judgment, the minor daughter was entitled to maintenance in an application under S. 24 of the Act. I am bound by the said judgment and, therefore, in not granting any maintenance to the minor child the learned District Judge acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction. Consequently, it is directed that the application filed by the wife under S. 24 for claiming maintenance for her minor daughter be decided afresh and the necessary maintenance be granted from the date of application. The Civil Revision is disposed of accordingly. The wife also be entitled to the costs of this petition which are quantified to be Rs.500/-.

Petition allowed.