1. This is an appeal by the husband against the order of the Additional District Judge dated May 8, 1973, awarding to the respondent-wife maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 28 per mensem for herself and Rs. 20 per mensem for her child living with her and Rs. 100 as litigation expenses on an application moved by her under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter called the Act).

2. The respondent wife has brought an application under Section 10 of the Act for judicial separation on the ground of cruelty which is pending in the Court below. Along with that she filed an application under Section 24 of the Act claiming maintenance pendenet lite at the rate of Rs. 120 p. m. and Rs. 200 by way of litigation expenses. The Court found that of the two children the elder child was with the husband while the younger child was with the wife. The husband had disputed the application of the wife and had contended that she had left of her own accord and that the second child was not conceived through him. He had referred to the affidavit by the wife wherein she was alleged to deposed that she had decided not to live with the husband. The wife had, however, taken the plea that the affidavit, if, any was advertently forged and that she had never left the house of her own accord. The Court took the view that the allegation whether the affidavit on which the husband relies that the wife left of her own accord was got from her by force and was correct or not was yet to be examined. The Court found that the salary of the appellant is Rs. 250 and after allowing deduction he is left with Rs. 140. He, therefore, granted Rs. 28 p.m. as maintenance pendente lite to the wife and Rs. 20 for the child admittedly living with the respondent. The appellant has filed this appeal against this order of the Court.

3. Mr. Malhotra learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the wife had herself in her affidavit of 17th July, 1971 deposed that she was living separate from her husband of her own free Will and she was not entitled to claim any maintenance during the pendency of the petition. Wife, however, has denied the affidavit and obviously this is a matter which still will have to be adjudicated in the main petition. Section 24 provides that where in proceedings under the Act either the wife or the husband has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, the Court may on the application of the wife or the husband, order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding and monthly during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioner’s own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the Court to be reasonable. It was proved before the Court that wife was not earning anything and no serious challenge has been made to this finding of the Court below. Having found that the net income of the husband comes to Rs. 190 p.m. the grant of Rs. 48 p.m. being Rs. 28 for the wife and Rs. 20 for the child cannot be said to be unreasonable or arbitrary as to call for interference. The Counsel for the appellant did make an effort to challenge the quantum. But in my view the Court below has exercised its discretion properly, and there is no occasion to interfere with this quantum. Mr. Malhotra, however, strongly contends that there is no jurisdiction for the Court to award maintenance to the child under Section 24 of the Act and the grant of Rs. 20/- for the child was unauthorized. In this connection he referred me to Akamas Chinna Babu v. Akamas Parbati,AIR 1967 Orissa 168;. In that case the Trial Court had awarded Rs. 30 to the wife as maintenance pendente lite and Rs. 10 for the daughter. The Division Bench upheld the order of the Trial Court so far as the maintenance to the wife was concerned but set aside the order in favour of the daughter as in its view Section 24 does not authorise grant of any pendenet lite maintenance to the daughter and in terms applies either to the wife or the husband as the case may be.

4. The appellant’s Counsel also gave an extract from a judgment Bankmi Chander Roy v. Smt. Angola Roy, 1971 BR.LJ 1008;. In that case the Trial Court had granted to the wife on an application under. Section 24 of the Act an amount of Rs. 325 for herself and her 3 children living with her. The Single Judge of Patna High Court, however, after referring to Section 24 observed that the grant of pendente lite allowance of Rs. 325 for the wife and three children is contrary to law as it cannot be permitted under Section 24 and reduced the amount to Rs. 100 for the wife only. I was consequently pressed by Mr. Malhotra to accept the interpretation given by these two Courts and to hold that the maintenance, which the wife could claim under Section 24, can only be for herself even though she was admittedly having children living with her. I am unable to agree. A reference to these two cases will show that no reasons are given for this conclusion and it seems to have been assumed that as the application can be made by wife or husband, the maintenance pendent lite necessarily can be granted only for either of them only and not for child. With very great respect it seems to me that the Courts have not appreciated the beneficial object of enacting Section 24. Now the object of Section 24 is to avoid a situation where an indigent person is unable to pursue matrimonial proceedings because of paucity of funds and thus suffer in the process. Take a case where the wife is, as in the present case admittedly not earning anything and she has started proceedings under the Act. If the wife was having admittedly in her custody a child from her marriage and Section 24 was to be interpreted as not authorising the Court to award maintenance for the child the whole object of Section 24 would be frustrated and nullified. Take the illustration of the case decided by the Patna High Court where the Trial Court awarded Rs. 325/- for the maintenance of the wife and three children but the High Court on the interpretation of Section 24 reduced it to Rs. 100 only for the wife. Faced with such a situation where the wife is looking after the children but the Court is held powerless to award maintenance to the children, the inheritable effect would be that the wife would be unable to pursue the proceedings under the Act and thus would be unable to pus the proceeding under the Act and thus would be deprived of exercising the right given to her under the Act. Purpose of Section 24 is to prevent that the indigent partner may not be put in such a straitened circumstances that he or she may be compelled to agree to any unfair terms because of lack of resources to fight for its rights. If the power of Section 24 was to be restricted as suggested by Orissa and Patna High Courts the said result would follow in case of indigent wife, who would be compelled to choose to give up the custody of the children and to suffer the pangs of a mother being separated from her small minor children including girls, or be overwhelmed by the pressing problem of looking after the children and also to fight litigation with the husband without getting maintenance under Section 24 for children living with her. Of course, it may be suggested that she could start proceedings under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, for claiming maintenance for the benefit of the children from the father. But that remedy is not to be confused with immediate and special requirement under Section 24 of the Act. If this argument is valid for children, it is not understood why Section 24 should have provided for maintenance pendente lite to the wife when she can equally claim maintenance from her husband under Section 18 of the Maintenance Act. Section 24 of the Act by nature is a summery remedy providing for immediate relief. If that be the object, as I think it to be, it stands to reason that the husband cannot plead that the order under Section 24 cannot be passed directing maintenance to be paid to the minor child who was admittedly living with the wife. I do not think that the word ‘wife or the husband’ should be interpreted in such a strict and literal sense as to rule out maintenance for the benefit of dependant children living with the wife because by the very nature of circumstance the requirement of wife will include the requirement of minor children depending on her and living with her. In this connection reference may be made to the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, which provides for the eviction of tenant if the premises are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as residence for himself. In J. L. Mehta v. Smt. Hira Devi,(1970) 6 D.L.T. 484; construing the word ‘himself’ I had held that restricted meaning to the word ‘himself’ cannot be given and that even the landlady who has her sons even though married and earning, claims eviction of the tenant on the ground that she bona fide requires them as residence for herself it cannot be said that this is prohibited by the statute as the word ‘himself’ cannot necessarily exclude adult and earning members of the family’.

5. Similarly in Bidhubhuson Sen v. Commissioner Patna Division,AIR 1955 Patna 496; it was held that the expression ‘his own occupation’ in S. 11 (3) (a) of the Rent Act cannot be restricted only to the occupation of the landlord himself but should be given the wide and liberal meaning so as to include the occupation of persons who are living with the landlord and are economically dependant on him. Hence where the landlord requires the premises for establishing his nephew (sister’s son) who is living with him and dependant on him, in business he would be entitled to an order in his favour. The matter looked at from another point of view. Section 24 talks of giving maintenance pendente lite where it appears to the Court that either the husband or the wife who has no independent income sufficient for her or his support. Now according to the Orissa and Patna High Courts the word ‘no independent income sufficient for her support’ must be limited to finding out whether a wife has sufficient income for herself and it is not permissible to take the need of the child living with her to determine this need. If this view was to be accepted, maintenance would be given for her but it would not be sufficient for her and her child. Surely when the Court is expected to see that maintenance given to wife is sufficient for her support, it must necessarily take into consideration the fact that the requirement of the wife for supporting herself extends not only to her own personal needs but to the needs of small child dependant on her and in that proceedings under Section 24 of the Act of the child must be treated as being the need of the wife. If, therefore, the Court while calculating the maintenance has taken the need of the child, it has not in any manner acted beyond authority of law. This amount of Rs. 48 cannot be considered unreasonable for the support of wife as well as the child and the award to the child is within purview of Section 24 of the Act. I would, therefore, consequently dismiss the appeal but with no order as to costs.

6. Counsel for the appellant had made a request that as he is earning a small amount it will not be possible to pay the whole of the arrear in one lump sumas he would be expected to do in pursuance of dismissal of the appeal and he, therefore, prayed that he may be allowed to pay this amount by instalments. I would while dismissing the appeal allow the appellant to pay the arrears up to the end of October, 1973, in instalment of Rs. 52 p.m. in addition to Rs. 48 p.m. which he has been ordered to pay by the Trial Court. The result will be that the appellant will pay Rs. 100 every month consisting of Rs. 48 as maintenance pendente lite and Rs. 52 on account of arrears on the 7th of every month. However, he may pay the first instalment by 15th December, 1973. The appellant has already paid Rs. 150 in pursuance of my order dated 25th September, 1973, he will, of course, be entitled to adjustment for that amount.

CM 1397/73.

This application has been filed under Section 24 in this Court by the wife claiming Rs. 750/- as expenses for the proceedings and Rs. 150 p.m. as maintenance pendente lite. The Trial Court has already directed payment to her during the pendency of the proceedings in the lower Court. I by my order dismissed the appeal and up-held the amount of maintenance granted by the Court below. As the proceedings in this case are still pending in the lower Court the wife will be entitled to the said amount so long as the proceedings continue in Trial court. Considering the circumstances of the case and the fact that the appellant is not earning much, I do not feel inclined to order any maintenance or litigation expenses to the wife in this Court. This application is dismissed.