RANJIT SINGH Vs. MANDEEP KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petition is at the instance of the husband complaining that a maintenance cannot be sought through an application under Sec. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act in matrimonial proceeding and the remedy will be only through application under Sec. 125 Crimial P.C. The argument is untenable.

(2.) The counsel for the petitioner relies on judgment of this Court in Satya Pal Vs. Sona Devi, 1992(2) LJR 710 where the Court has considered whether a grant of maintenance to minor children would be justified or not. The Court has said that Sec. 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act specifically dealt with custody of the children, their maintenance and education and maintenance cannot be granted under Sec. 24. In Naresh Vs. Smt. Rajni in C.R. No.1635 of 2015, dated 14.12.2015 where the issue of maintenance was with reference to the quantum of maintenance awarded by the trial Court, the argument again was whether the maintenance could be granted for the child as well. This Court was observing that maintenance cannot be granted to the child. The above judgments are out of sync with the established principle of law.

(3.) The issue of whether a claim for maintenance could be made for a child in an application under Sec. 24 was directly confronted by the Supreme Court in Jasbir Kaur Sehgal Vs. The District Judge, Dehradun, 1997(7) SCC 484 . The Court was holding that Sec. 24 of the Act no doubt talks of maintenance of wife during the pendency of the proceedings but this Section, in our view, cannot be read in isolation and cannot be given restricted meaning to hold that it is maintenance of the wife alone and no one else. Since wife is maintaining the eldest unmarried daughter, her right to claim maintenance would include her own maintenance and that of her daughter. This fact has to be kept in view while fixing maintenance pendente lite for the wife. We are aware of the provisions of Sec. 26 of the Act providing for custody of minor children, their maintenance and education but that Sec. operates in its own field. This decision is, therefore, a direct answer to the point raised by the petitioner and which has been missed by the two decisions referred to before me. The first judgment in Satya Pal Vs. Sona Devi rendered prior to the decision of the Supreme Court and could not have, therefore, been referred it. The second judgment in Naresh Vs. Smt. Rajni is subsequent to the judgment of the Supreme Court and being contrary o the judgment of the Supreme Court is not good law.