KAMLESH ARORA Vs. JUGAL KISHORE ARORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DISTRICT Judge, Bhiwani, dated 1st of March, 1989, whereby in an application under Section 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.

(2.) THE Learned counsel for the wife-petitioner submitted that as a matter of fact application under Section 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 Hindu LR 1; Chand Gupta (Smt.) v. Adarsh Pal Gupta, (1986) 1 Hindu LR 460 (Punj and Har); Pushpa Devi v. Om Parkash, (1985) 2 Hindu LR 327; Thimmappa v. Nagaveni, 1976 Hindu LR 693 : (AIR 1976 Kant 215) and Gulab Chand v. Sampati Devi, AIR 1988 J and K 22.

(3.) 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 Hindu LR 586; Dr. Rajinder Kumar Batta v. Dr. Kama Kumari, 1979 Hindu LR 443 and Akasam Chinna Babu v. Akasam Parbati, AIR 1967 Orissa 163.