Rajinder Sachar ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the husband against the order of ths Additional District Judge dated May 8, 1973, awarding to the respondent-wife maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 28. 00 per mensemn for herself and Rs. 20. 00 per mensem for her child living with her and Rs 100. 00as litigation expenses on an application moved by her under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriags Act (hermafter called the Act ). ( 2 ) THE respondent wife has brought an application under Section 10 of the Act for judicial separation on the ground of cruelly which is pending in the court below. Along with that she filed an application under - Section 24 of the Act claiming maintenance pendente lite at the rate of Rs. 120. 00 p m. and Rs 200. 00 by way of litigation expenses. The court fcund that of the two children the elder child was with the busband while the younger child was with the wife. The husband had disputed 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 the wherein she was alleged to eposed 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 ibat the allegation whether the affidavit on which the husband relies that the wife left of her own accord was gel 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. 00 and after allowing deduction he is left with Rs. 140. 00. He, therefore, granted Rs 28. 00 p. m. as maintenance pendente lite to the wife and Rs. 20. 00 for the child admittedly living with the respondent. The appellant has filed this appeal against this order of the court. ( 3 ) MR. 00 and after allowing deduction he is left with Rs. 140. 00. He, therefore, granted Rs 28. 00 p. m. as maintenance pendente lite to the wife and Rs. 20. 00 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 dosed 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 proceedings, 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 lhe proceeding such such as, having regarding 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 tills finding of the court below. Having found that the net income of the husband comes to Rs. 190. 00 p. m. the grant of Rs. 48. 00 p. m. being Rs. 28/ for the wife and Rs. 20 for the child cannot be said to be ucreasonable 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 unauthorised. In this connection he referred me to Akasam Chinna Babu v Akasam Parbati. In that case the trial court had awarded Rs. 30. 00 to the wife as maintenance pendente life and Rs10. 00 for the daughter. 20/ for the child was unauthorised. In this connection he referred me to Akasam Chinna Babu v Akasam Parbati. In that case the trial court had awarded Rs. 30. 00 to the wife as maintenance pendente life and Rs10. 00 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 pendente lire maintenance to the daughter and in terms applies either to the wife or the husband as the case may be. ( 4 ) THE appellants counsel also gave an extract from a judgment Bonkmi chan der Ray v Smt. Anjoli Roy In that case the trial court had graanted to the wife on an epplication under. Section 24 of the Act an amount of Rs. 325. 00 for hereself 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. 00 for the wife and three children is contrary to law as it cannot be permited 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 chlidren living with her. I am unable to agree. A refrence to these two cases will show that no reasons arc given for this conclusion and it seems to have been assumed that as the application can be made say wife or husband, the maintenance pendente lite necessarily can be granted only for either of them only and not for child. . With very great repect it seems to me that the courts have not appreciated the beneficial object of eriacting Section 24. Now the object of 24 is to avoid a situation where an indigent person is unable to pursue murimonial proceedings because of paucity of funds and thus suffer in the process. Take a case where the was is, as in the present case admittedly not earning anything and she has started proceedings under the Act. Now the object of 24 is to avoid a situation where an indigent person is unable to pursue murimonial proceedings because of paucity of funds and thus suffer in the process. Take a case where the was 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 her custody a child from her marrige and Section 24 was to be interpreted as not authorising the courtr to award maintenace for the child the whole object of section 24 would be frustrated and nullfied. Take the illustration of the case decided by the Patna High Court where the trial court awarded Rs. 325. 00 for the maintenance of the wife and three children but the High Court on the interpretation of Setion 24 reduced to Rg100. 00 Only fcr the life. Faced wife such a situation where the wife is locking 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 deprived of exercising the right given to her under the Act. Purpose of Section 24 is to pre vdert that the indigent partner may not he put in such a straitened circumstances that be or she may be compelled to agree to any unfair termss because of lack of resources to fight for its rights. If the power of Section 24 was to be restricted as suggested by Orisss and Patna High Courts the said result would follow in case of indigent wife, who would compelled to choose to give up the custody of the children and to suffer the pangs of a mother being separased from her small minor childrinre including girls, or be overvbelmed by the pressinrg probleme of loking 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 Adoption and Maintenance, 1956, for claiming maintenance for the benefit of the children from the father. But the remedy is not to be confused with immediale and special requirement under Section 24 of the Act. Of course it may be suggested that she could start proceedings under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance, 1956, for claiming maintenance for the benefit of the children from the father. But the remedy is not to be confused with immediale and special requirement under Section 24 of the Act. lf this argument for children, it is not understood the Section 24 should have provided for maintenance pendente lite to the wite when she can equally claim mainteance from her husband under Section 18is of the Maintenance Act. Section 24 of the Act by S. 1971 V L J R 1008 nature is a summrey remedy providing for immediate relief. Ifthat 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 pasted 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 wile because by the very oature of circumstance the requirement of wife will include the requirement of miner children depending on her and living with her In this connection reference may be made to the provisions of the Delhi Kent Conrol Act, 1958, which proides for the eviction of renant if the premises are reduired bona fide by the landlord for occupation as residence for himself. In J L. Mehta v. Smi. In J L. Mehta v. Smi. Hira Dev 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 sops 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 Bidbubhusan Sen v. Commissooner Patna Divisien it was held that the expression his own occupation in S. ll (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 meanng so as to induce the occupation of persins who are living with the Landlord and ate economically dependent on him. Hence where the landlord requires the prelses for establishing his nephew (sister s son) who is living will him and dependant on biro, 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 life where it appears to the court that either the husband or the wife who has to independent income sufficrent for her or his support Now aceording to the Orissa and Patna High Courts the word no independeit 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 tins need. If this view was TO be accepted, maintenance would be given for her bill 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 coasideration the fact that the I requirement of the wife for supportig extends not only to her own personal needs but to the needs of small child dependent on her and In that proceedings under Section 24 of the Act need 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. 00 cannot be considered unreasonable for the support of wife as well as the coild and the award to the child is within purview of Section 24 of the Act. I would, therefore, consequently dismiss the appeal. but with BO order as to costs ( 6 ) COUNSEL for the appellant had made a request that as he is a small amounth it will not bre possible to pay the whole of the arrear in one lamppsumas he would expectod 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 apellant to pay the arrears upto the end of October, 1943, in instalment of Rs. 52. 00 p. m. in additionto Rs. 48. 00 p. oa. which he has besa ordered io pay by the trial court. The resale will be that the appellant will pay Rs. l00. 00 every month consistiag of Rs. 48/ as maiatenance pendecte 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. l50. 00in pursuance of my order dated 25ih September, 1973, He will of course be entitled to adjustment for that amount. CM 7397/73. This application has been filed under Section 24 in this court by the wife claiming Rs. 750. 00 as expenses for the proceedings and Rs. 150. 00 p. m. as maintenance pendent lite. The trial court has already directed payment to her during the pendency of the proceedings in tha 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 arc 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 carcing much, I do not feel inclined to order any maintenance or litigation expenses to the wife in this court. This application is dismissed