JUDGMENT M.M. Kumar, J. - The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution by challenging order dated 27.9.2003 passed by the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, holding that the petitioner-wife is entitled to be paid maintenance for her two daughters by her husband-respondent. The principal ground for dismissing the application of the petitioner wife filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for brevity the Act) is that the petitioner-wife has already sufficient independent income even to maintain her two daughters. 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent-husband filed a petition No. 6 of 2001 for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 on the ground of cruelty and desertion. In the alternative, prayer has been made for judicial separation. The parties were married to each other on 9.10.1978 and two daughters namely Vandana Mehta and Swati Mehta were born out of the wedlock on 3.4.1980 and 20.2.1990 respectively. Both the daughters have been residing with the petitioner-wife and all their expenses like boarding, lodging, schooling, etc. are being met by the petitioner-wife. During the pendency of the afore-mentioned petition, she moved an application that her source of income is limited and it is not possible for her to maintain and bear all the expenses of the two daughters. It was further averred that respondent-husband is holding the post of Principal, Higher Secondary School and getting a salary of Rs. 20,000/- over and above the said income of Rs. 10,000/-. It has been alleged that he has been avoiding his liability on one pretext or the other. Accordingly, a prayer was made to pay maintenance @ Rs. 15,000/- p.m. for the two children and also litigation expenses amounting to Rs. 15,000/-. The stand of the respondent-husband in the reply to the application filed before the Additional District Judge was that the petitioner-wife is working as an Assistant Administrative Officer and drawing a salary of Rs. 26,000/-. It is further averred that she owns a residential House No. 428/1A, Sector 44-A, Chandigarh which has been built up with the aid of respondent-husband and is fully paid up. It is further alleged that the petitioner-wife is leading a luxurious life as she has two ACs installed in the house and owns her own car. As the income at the hands of the petitioner-wife is sufficient, she can look after the children. It is further alleged that the petitioner-wife is leading a luxurious life as she has two ACs installed in the house and owns her own car. As the income at the hands of the petitioner-wife is sufficient, she can look after the children. It is further pointed out that the custody of the children has not been given to respondent-husband despite his request. He has pleaded that he is not earning anything and on account of the fact that the elder daughter Vandana is major, she is not entitled to any maintenance. 3. The Additional District Judge has been completely swayed by the income of the petitioner-wife, which he assessed between Rs. 11,000/- to Rs. 13,000/- and has gone on to believe that the respondent-husband has no income. His observations in this regard read as under :- "7. In the present case Mrs. Radha Mehta is claiming maintenance to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- per month from her husband Krishan Kumar Mehta for their two daughters one of whom is major. The maintenance under this Section can only be claimed by the spouse and not by the children. However, in some exceptional cases, where the spouse is not having any independent source of income and is maintaining the children born out of the wedlock of the parties may claim maintenance from other spouse, but facts of the present case are quite different. 8. The evidence on record shows that Mrs. Radha Mehta is working as Assistant Administrative Officer in the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and she is drawing salary to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- though after deduction of Income Tax, the carry home salary is between Rs. 11,000/- to Rs. 13,000/- but this amount is also quite sufficient for her to maintain her two daughters specially so, when her husband Krishan Kumar Mehta is not having any income at this stage. Applicant has failed to bring on record any evidence, which could show that after retirement, her husband Krishan Mehta is having some regular monthly income. She has even failed to bring on record any evidence regarding any amount having been deposited in his name. 9. As such, in view of the discussion made above, there is no justification to order Krishan Kumar Mehta to pay the maintenance to his wife Mrs. Radha Mehta, when Mrs. Radha Mehta is already having sufficient independent income to maintain her two daughters. 9. As such, in view of the discussion made above, there is no justification to order Krishan Kumar Mehta to pay the maintenance to his wife Mrs. Radha Mehta, when Mrs. Radha Mehta is already having sufficient independent income to maintain her two daughters. With this observation, this application is dismissed." 4. Mr. Vinod Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner-wife has argued that the learned Additional District Judge has committed a grave error in law, inasmuch as it has been concluded that Section 24 has to be confined to the payment of maintenance pendente lite only to the spouses and it cannot be extended to the children. The learned counsel has maintained that there are sufficient provisions made under Section 26 of the Act as well as in the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 for grant of maintenance to the children. In that regard, he has made reference to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun, AIR 1997 SC 3397 and also a judgment of Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Rajni Abrol v. Adarsh Abrol, 1991(1) Hindu Law Reporter 168. Mr. Chaudhary has then pointed out that the elder daughter is doing her M.B.A. in Delhi and her admission expenses were about Rs. 2.00 lacs. He has then submitted that Rs. 6,000/- p.m. is spent on her boarding and lodging. With regard to the younger daughter, it has been submitted that she is about 14 years of age and she is studying in St. Annies School, Sector 32, Chandigarh and her monthly expenditure is not less than Rs. 1,000/-. It has also pointed out that she is suffering from fits, which requires continuous medical expenses and attention. If the income of the petitioner-wife is found to be Rs. 11,000/-, it does not require much imagination that she would be far short of funds and in these compelling circumstances, application for claiming maintenance has to be filed. 5. Mr. R.P. Bali, learned counsel for the respondent-husband has argued that under Section 24, maintenance can be claimed by a spouse from the other spouse and not by one spouse on behalf of the children. 5. Mr. R.P. Bali, learned counsel for the respondent-husband has argued that under Section 24, maintenance can be claimed by a spouse from the other spouse and not by one spouse on behalf of the children. It has been pointed out that the application has been rightly dismissed because it was not maintainable and moreover, the respondent-husband did not have sufficient means as he has been relived from his official duties. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Satya Pal v. Smt. Sona Devi, 1992(2) Hindu Law Reporter 372. 6. Having heard the learned counsel at a considerable length, I am of the considered view that maintenance for the children can be claimed by the petitioner-wife by filing application under Section 26 of the Act. The mere fact that Section 26 has not been mentioned should not result into an unrealistic and literal approach of rejecting the application on that ground. The learned Additional District Judge should have considered the application under Section 26 of the Act and Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. On the basis of incorrect quoting of provisions, the relief should not have been declined. 7. Even on merit, the learned Additional District Judge has committed an error. It is undisputed that the respondent-husband was holding the post of Principal, D.A.V. Centenary Senior Secondary Public School, Malerkotla on the date of filing the petition for divorce under Section 13 as is patent from the impugned order. It has remained mystery when he has been relieved. The respondent-husband has failed to place on record any document showing that either he has been retired from service or he has resigned or his services have been terminated. In the absence of any such pleadings, the stand of the respondent-husband that he has been relieved is unacceptable in law especially when on his own showing he had been working as Principal of a privately managed school. The salary in these schools is equivalent to the teachers working in Government schools by virtue of provisions made in Punjab Privately Managed Recognised School Employees (Security of Service) Act, 1979 and the rules framed thereunder. Therefore, it has to be presumed that the respondent-husband is drawing salary, which is not less than Rs. 10,000/- in any case. The salary in these schools is equivalent to the teachers working in Government schools by virtue of provisions made in Punjab Privately Managed Recognised School Employees (Security of Service) Act, 1979 and the rules framed thereunder. Therefore, it has to be presumed that the respondent-husband is drawing salary, which is not less than Rs. 10,000/- in any case. It has been held in the case of Jasbir Kaur Sehgal (supra) that once the parties have made diverse claims one inflating the income and the other suppressing the same element of conjecture and guess work is bound to enter the determination of the income of the husband. It cannot be done by mathematical precision. It has also been held that the husband is under an obligation to maintain the children and even the wife if she has no income. However, in the present case, there is no claim made by the wife for payment of maintenance pendente lite but application has been filed only on behalf of the children. Therefore, it is obligatory on the part of the respondent- husband to pay the maintenance to the children during the pendency of the petition filed by him under Section 13 seeking dissolution of marriage. In view of the above, this petition succeeds. On the basis of the income of the respondent-husband, which is assessed at Rs. 10,000/-, it is directed that he would pay Rs. 1,000/- for his younger daughter and Rs. 3,500/- for his elder daughter as maintenance pendente lite. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms. Petition allowed.