KARTARCHAND DALLIRAM JAIN Vs. TARAVATI KARTARCHAND JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition raises an interesting point of law with regard to the grant of maintenance pendente his under S. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 1955.

(2.) The petitioner husband filed a petition for divorce in the Bombay City Civil Court at Bombay, being M-J. Petition No. 647 of 1977, against the respondent- wife on the ground that the respondent wife after the solemnization of the marriage had treated the petitioner with cruelty. After the filing of the petition the marriage had treated the petitioner the respondent wife took out a Notice of Motion dated 31-10-1977 against the petitioner husband for maintenance pendente lite under section 24 of the said Act, claiming a sum or Rs. 1000/- per month. The Notice of Motion was argued on the footing was claimed by the respondent wife not only for maintaining herself but also three daughters of the said marriage, who had attained majority. The learned Judge of the City Civil Court in a detailed judgment dated 9-3-1978 passed an order for maintenance pendente lite of a sum of Rs. 225/- per month for the respondent-wife and a sum of Rs. 175/- per month for each of the three daughters. It may be pointed out that the eldest daughter sunita was married on 7th Sep., 1978. I.e. after the passing of the impugned order, The eldest daughter sunita was HY/HY/D873/81/VRK/RSK born in 1955, the second daughter Anita was born in 1957 and the youngest daughter Samita was born in 1969. It is not in dispute between the parties that all three had attained majority at the time when the respondent-wife had taken out her Notice of Motion to the City Civil Court at Bombay on 31-10-1977.

(3.) Mr. Samani, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner- husband, has challenged the judgement and order of learned Judge of the City Civil Court only in so far as the learned Judge has ordered the petitioner to pay sum of Rs. 175/- per month to each of the three daughters. Mr. Samant has not impugned the order in respect of the payment of Rs. 225/- per month to the respondent-wife. Under S. 24 the Court could provide for the maintenance either of the wife or the husbane. As the case may be, in the event or either party not having any independent income sufficient for his or her support and necessary expenses of the proceedings. Mr.Samani contended that Section 24 did not provide for an order of maintenance of children either minor or adult, Provision for the maintenance of minor children was made under Section 26 of the said Act both pendents lite as also after the passing of the decree. According to Mr. Samant the learned Judge of the City Civil Court by granting maintenance for the three adult daughters had traversed beyond the scope of Sections 25 and 26 of the said Act. Sections 25, 26 of the said Act. Provide;-