JUDGMENT
V.S. Kokje, J.
1. THE applicant is aggrieved by the order dated 20 6 90 passed by the 9th Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge Indore in case No. 261 of 1987 under the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’.)
2. Non-applicant wife had moved an application under Section 24 of the Act for interim maintenance and expenses of litigation in a case filed by the applicant against her for grant of divorce under Section 13 of the Act. The Court after examining the parties, directed the applicant to pay Rs. 500/- month to the non-applicant and Rs. 100/- per month for the daughter born out of the marriage. Towards the expenses the Court directed the applicant to pay Rs. 500/- in a lump-sum.
3. Shri R.C. Pandey learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that in the application of the non-application under Section 24 of the Act there is a prayer only for Rs. 450/-per month for the wife and Rs. 150/- per month for the daughter, but the Court has granted Rs. 500/- per month for the wife which amounts to grant relief in excess of what was asked for.
4. On perusal of the record and the impugned order it is clear that that assessment of the interim relief by the Trial Court cannot be said to be arbitrary. After all, the Court has to decide on the material placed before it, as to whether the interim maintenance could be granted or not and if it has to be granted the quantum. The Court has not separately assessed the need of the wife and he child and there is nothing wrong in it. Ultimately the wife has to maintain the child and she is not going to spend money on the maintenance of the child counting every paisa spent on the child. If the Court has directed a lump-sum of Rs. 600/-per month for maintenance of the wife and the child and gave break-up as Rs. 500/- for the wife and Rs. 100/- for the child, it could not be said that it has acted without jurisdiction and committed material irregularity. There is, therefore, no force in the plea that the Court has granted maintenance at a rate in excess of what was asked for by the wife.
5. It was also contended that under Section 24 of the Act, maintenance could not be granted for the child. Shri B.N. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the non-applicant has placed a photostat copy of the judgment in Manoj Kumar Jaiswal v. Lila Jaiswal [a D.B. Decision of the Calcutta High Court reported in II (1986) DMC 269]. The view taken in it is that maintenance could be granted for a child also under Section 24 of the Act. A Division Bench of] Karnataka High Court in Smt. Subhashini v. B.R. Umakanth, [II(1981) DMC ] 116] has taken the same view. I am in respectful agreement with the view taken by Calcutta High Court and Karnataka High Court and would not like to assess the need of the mother and the child separately granting maintenance after weighing their need in golden scales. After all, the need of the child is as much of the child and is on the contrary expected mother is not expected to neglect the need of the child and is on the contrary expected to meet the need of the child even at the expenses of her own maintenance. In this view of the matter, there is no doubt that while granting maintenance under Section 24 of the Act to a wife not only her own need for maintenance of herself would be considered but if she had a child to look after, need of the child shall also be taken into account.
6. This revision petition has therefore, no force and it is dismissed. The applicant shall pay to the non-applicant Rs. 300/- towards expenses of this revision petition. These expenses shall be recoverable in the same manner as the amount granted by the Trial Court for expenses of litigation.