P. K. TRIPATHY, J. ( 1 ) ( 2 ) THIS Civil Revision is disposed of at the stage of admission without issuing notice to the opposite party because of certain admitted facts which are readable from the impugned order passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Baripada in O. S. No. 1/676 of 2002/2001 so also not to detain disposed of the suit. ( 3 ) THE aforesaid suit is a proceeding under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short 'the Act') in which the present petitioner No. 1 is the respondent and the opposite party is the plaintiff. Inter se relationship between petitioner No. 1 and the opposite party as wife and husband is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that petitioner No. 2 Kumari Anshu Samantaray, aged about 6 years, is the daughter born out of the wedlock. In the aforesaid suit, interim maintenance and litigation expenditure was claimed by petitioner No. 1 for herself and also interim maintenance for the minor daughter. Accordingly, she filed an application which was registered as I. A. No. 10 of 2003. Opposite party resisted to that claim on the grounds that petitioner No. 1 has a monthly income of Rs. 3,000/- (three thousand), she has voluntarily deserted him and the application has been filed to delay disposal of the suit which has been targeted to be disposed of by end of March, 2003. After taking into consideration, contention of both the parties the Court below granted interim monthly maintenance @ Rs. 1,000/- (one thousand) to petitioner No. 1 besides granting her litigation expenditure of Rs. 2,000/- (two thousand ). However, the Court below refused to pay interim maintenance to petitioner No. 2, the minor daughter of the parties. It is not disputed on record that the opposite party is a Government servant being an Ayurvedic Doctor. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners refers to the case of Mahendra Kumar Mishra v. Smt. Snehalata Kar, AIR 1983 Orissa 74, in support of his contention that it is not the form but the substance of the claim made in the application which should have been considered by learned Civil Judge and should have allowed interim maintenance to petitioner No. 2. Provision in Section 26 of the Act entitles the minor to claim for interim maintenance. Provision in Section 26 of the Act entitles the minor to claim for interim maintenance. Simply because in the application filed under Section 24, the provision in Section 26 was not added in support of the prayer for interim maintenance for the minor that should not have been made the sole reason or criteria for the Court below to refuse interim maintenance to the minor. When petitioner No. 2 is aged six years, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the quantum of income of the opposite party, it is directed that the opposite party should pay interim maintenance @ Rs. 300/- (three hundred) per month to her from the date of the application i. e. , from 18th January, 2003. The Civil Revision stands disposed of accordingly. ( 5 ) IF the opposite party, shall feel aggrieved by the aforesaid order, then he may approach this Court within two weeks from the date when a copy of this order shall be available in the Court below. If the opposite party shall make any such application, then that shall be considered in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.