JUDGMENT J.G. Chitre, J. 1. Heard Mr. V.S. Samvatsar, Counsel for the applicant; Mr. J.C. Yadav for non-applicant. Both of them have been heard. 2. Mr. Samvatsar explains the office note which is in respect of the endorsement made in the copy of the relevant document annexed to the petition. Keeping in view the broader approach, the said office note stands dismissed. 3. The applicant and non-applicant are wife and husband and presently they are having strained relations because of matrimonial disputes. The wife has preferred the application for pendente lite alimony and for getting the amount for meeting out the expenditure of litigation. The Matrimonial Court passed the order and directed the non-applicant, Sudhir, the husband to give Rs. 1,000/- for meeting out the expenditure of litigation to applicant, Majnu, the wife. The Matrimonial Court also directed non-applicant Sudhir to give Rs. 500/- per month to applicant Manju as pendente lite alimony. The Matrimonial Court also expressed the opinion in the order that it is not necessary it call the children to the Court for the purpose of ascertaining whether they desire to meet the mother. These are the points which are in controversy and have been argued by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 4. The husband Sudhir is in service in Oriental Insurance Company as Branch Manager. It has come on the record that he is getting monthly salary to the tune of Rs. 8164-60 ps. and gets Rs. 4,815/- after necessary deductions. An averment has been made by husband Sudhir that wife Manju is earning Rs. 2,000/- per month by stitching the dresses. The pendente lite alimony and the amount necessary for expenditure of litigation has to be assessed by finding out the proper amount by properly considering the means of husband and the need of the wife if they are engaged in contest in respect of Matrimonial dispute in matrimonial Court. The spouse who would drag other spouse to the Court has to pay the amount of pendente lite alimony and the expenses of litigation if such other spouse is unable to maintain himself or herself and unable to meet out the expenditure of litigation. Thus, keeping in view that aspect and the facts of the present matter, I come to the conclusion that husband Sudhir, the non-applicant shall give Rs. Thus, keeping in view that aspect and the facts of the present matter, I come to the conclusion that husband Sudhir, the non-applicant shall give Rs. 1,000/- (one thousand) per month to wife Manju, the applicant as pendente lite alimony in view of provisions of Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. He shall also give Rs. 1,000/- (one thousand) for meeting out the expenditure of litigation to applicant. This amount is not increased because it has come in the argument advanced, that the father of the applicant happens to be a lawyer. Though the father is not liable to render free legal service to his daughter, keeping in view the normal experience of the behaviour of human beings, he is very much likely to help Manju, his daughter in that cause. Thus, the order in respect of pendente lite alimony and expenditure of litigation stands modified. 5. The Matrimonial Court has committed the error in assessing the important point of prayer made by the applicant wife Manju for meeting her children. Learned Court has erroneously taken the view that it is not proper to call the minor children of both Manju and Sudhir to the Court even for ascertaining their minds or inclination towards their father or mother. The Court has unnecessarily drawn an inference that calling those children to the Court for interrogation would be detrimental to their future. I do not find substance in it for want of any justifying material on record in that context. The welfare of minor children of the spouses so fighting in the Matrimonial Court has to be given paramount importance, at the same time it becomes the duty of the Court to ascertain whether children are willing to meet either mother or father when such request has been made by either of them. A proper importance has to be given to human feelings, the natural love and affection of the parents towards their children. The spouses may afford quarrelling in the Court but that does not mean that in all cases the children would not be ready and willing to meet either father or mother so quarrelling in the Court; on the contrary they would prefer both of them together. The spouses may afford quarrelling in the Court but that does not mean that in all cases the children would not be ready and willing to meet either father or mother so quarrelling in the Court; on the contrary they would prefer both of them together. Keeping in view the human instinct and feelings, it is possible that the children may strive for meeting the parents or either of them who has been refused such opportunity by the circumstances prevalent. On some occasions presence of children may bring amicable settlement between such spouses. If the spouses meet the children often, that may create possibility of reunion. It is not proper for the Court to draw any such inference or conclusion unless a proper interrogation has been made to such children. It is totally improper to refuse opportunity to either of the parents to meet their children if such desire has been expressed by any one of parents in the absence of any good ground prohibiting such meeting. Calling a child in the Court does not necessarily mean that it would create bad or improper impact on his mind. The Courts are not such places. None should not be so pesimistic in approach. No such negative attitude should be taken. 6. Therefore, I hereby expunge such observation made in the order which is being challenged by this revision petition which sounds prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner wife Manju. The Court is directed to call the children in the Court and after interrogating them properly should ascertain whether those children are willing to meet their mother or whether they refuse to meet their mother. The Court should also try to find out whether they are giving such answers voluntarily or they have been so tutored. After making necessary tactful interrogation and enquiry, the Matrimonial Court should assess the situation afresh and pass the order in that context which should be strictly interlocutory order till decision of the matrimonial petition between the applicant and non-applicant. It is made clear that the observations made in this order shall not weigh at the time of decision of the said matrimonial petition in any way so far as merit of rival contentions are concerned. 7. Thus the children be called to the Court at the expenditure of the father who appears to be a person of sufficient means. C.C. to both the parties.