Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. Coming to the merits of the cases the learned Civil Judge directed the payment of Rs. 275 per month on the basis that the respondent's salary was Rs. 1500 and making some deductions for payment of compulsory insurance premia, the net income has to be taken at Rupees 1400 and award of 1/5th of that amount would be reasonable. The order was made on 4th September 1978 and the direction was that the amount should be paid from the date of application, i. e., 30th May 1977.

6. Smt. Pramila, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, urged that the interim payment is inadequate and the Court below was in error in holding that an interim maintenance could not be granted in regard to the minor child in an application under S. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. She relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Thimmappa v. Nagaveni, (1976) 2 Kant LJ 24: (AIR 1976 Kant 215). Sri Shama Rao, learned counsel for the respondent, however, supported the view taken by the Court below that in such an application, a claim for maintenance on behalf of the minor child would not. be tenable and relied upon a decision of this Court reported in Chandrakant v. Sharadabai (1977) 2 Kant LJ 29. In Thimmappa's case, the learned single Judge noticed a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and agreed with the principles enunicated therein that in an application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, maintenance could be determined in the light of Section 26 also which empowers the Court to make orders for interim maintenance in regard to the minor children. Though Section 24 in terms refers only to the wife or husband making an application, the Court has got power -under Section 26 to make interim order in respect of maintenance of minor children also. Venkataswami, J. observed in Thimmappa's thus (at p. 217 of AIR 1976 Kant): -