DAMODHARAN Vs. MEERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner challenges the order of the Sub Court, Trichur in I.A. No. 1359 of 1985 in H.M.O.P. 28 of 1985. The respondent (wife) filed the petition claiming ad-interim maintenance for herself and her two children and also litigation expenses from her husband. The learned Sub Judge allowed that application and the husband was directed to pay Rs. 150/- per mensem as maintenance to his wife and Rs. 75/- per mensem each to his two children. He was also directed to pay Rs.500/- towards the litigation expenses.

(2.) The revision petitioner filed H.M.O.P.28 of 1985 under S.9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights against the respondent. Admittedly they have two children. The respondent filed I.A. 1359 of 1985 under S.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act claiming ad-interim maintenance of Rs. 1,300/- per month for herself and her two children and also a sum of Rs. 1,000/- towards litigation expenses.

(3.) The main contention of the revision petitioner is that the children are not entitled to get ad-interim maintenance in a petition filed under S.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is argued that a plain reading of S.24 of the Act would clearly show that wife or husband alone can claim maintenance pendente lite and expenses of the proceedings and hence it is patent that the order of the court allowing maintenance to the children is wholly unjustified. Counsel relied on AIR 1981 Jammu & Kashmir 5 (Puran Chand v. Kamla Devi) and AIR 1982 Orissa 270 (Purusottam Das Agarwala v. Smt. Puspa Devi) in support of the aforesaid contention. Counsel urged that on a plain interpretation of S.24 of the Act, children are not entitled to get maintenance in a proceeding initiated by either of the spouses. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the above decisions have not considered the ambit of S.26 of the Act and it does not lay down the correct law. Relying on AIR 1981 Karnataka 115 (Smt. Subhasini v. B.R. Umakanth), AIR 1976 Karnataka 215 (Dr. D. Thimmappa v. Nagaveni) and AIR 1982 Andhra Pradesh 100 (Narendra Kumar v. Suraj Mehta) counsel contended that the order of the court below granting maintenance to the children is perfectly in order.