HEERALAL GATTULAL JAIN Vs. RAVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision, the petitioner, who instituted a suit for dissolution of his marriage Under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act) against the respondent, has challenged the order of interim maintenance awarded at the rate of Rs. 130/- per month to the minor son.

(2.) KU. Nutan Saxena contended that Under Section 24 of the Act, no maintenance can be granted to a child as it is the wife or the husband, as the case may be, who has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceedings, may claim monthly maintenance during the proceedings, having regard to the petitioner's own income and the income of the respondent and can also claim expenses of the proceedings. Learned counsel pressed into service on Rukmanidevi's case, 1970 JLJ Note 118, Akasam Chinna Babu's case, AIR 1967 Orissa 163, Kartarchand Dalliram Jain's case, AIR 1982 Bom. 14 and Puran Chand's case, AIR 1981 J. K. 5. It was also submitted that the petitioner's income is only Rs. 1,000/- per month, who is already paying monthly expenses at the rate of Rs. 300a per month to the respondent as per order dated 11-9-1987, now the petitioner cannot bear the burden of the son as he has to maintain other members of his family.

(3.) ON the other hand, Shri G. D. Sharma, placing reliance on Narendra Kumar Mehta's case, AIR 1982 A. P. 100, Smt. Subasini's case, AIR 1981 Karnt. 115, Thimmappa's case, AIR 1976 Karnt. 215 and Baboolal's case, AIR 1974 Raj. 93, contended that interim maintenance can also be granted for maintenance of a child. In any case, learned counsel submitted that Under Section 26 of the Act, a Court is competent to pass interim orders and make such provisions in the decree as it may deem just and proper with respect to the custody, maintenance and education of minor children.