Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has come to this Court in revision challenging the order dated 22.11.2006 passed in Matrimonial Case No. 14 of 2003/7 of 2005 by the Principal Judge (Family Court), Rohtas (Sasaram) by which he has granted Rs. 1500/- per month as ad interim maintenance in favour of the opposite party, for her maintenance and the maintenance of her two children living with her. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order mainly on the ground that the court below has refused to go into the issue as to whether the opposite party herself possesses sufficient means or not and regarding financial resources of the parties and had come to the conclusion holding that the petitioner in the present case is duty bound to maintain his wife. Without deciding the said issue, according to the learned counsel, there is no jurisdiction in the court below to entertain an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is submitted by learned counsel that under Section 24 of the Act either the wife or the husband who has no independent income sufficient for her/his support may apply to the Court and the Court may direct the payment of maintenance pendente lite to the concerned husband/wife. By refusing to go into the said issue the Court below, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, has committed jurisdictional error and the order is thus, illegal and against the law. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party, on the other hand, sought to support the order on the basis of affidavit filed by the opposite party in the court below. It is stated that it is the duty of the husband to maintain his wife and the affidavit of the opposite party discloses the various properties in possession of the petitioner and the wife has also made the claim that she is unable to support herself and is living with her widowed mother. It is also submitted that the two children born from the marriage are also living with the wife and they are also entitled to be maintained by their father, the petitioner of this case. 5. It is also submitted that the two children born from the marriage are also living with the wife and they are also entitled to be maintained by their father, the petitioner of this case. 5. On the question of grant of maintenance to the children learned counsel for the petitioner states that the order is not severable and there is nothing in the order as to how much maintenance would be awarded in favour of the children and thus, the entire order must go. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that in an application under Section 24 of the Act which was filed by the opposite party no maintenance can be awarded to the children. 6. This Court is in agreement with learned counsel for the petitioner so far as the question of prima facie determination of the issue as to whether the husband or the wife, whoever makes application, has no independent income for her or his support is concerned, for the purpose of directing payment of maintenance pendente lite. The Court should also prima facie determine the income of the husband and the wife in order to grant maintenance pendente lite to the applicant spouse. So far as the grant of maintenance to the children is concerned, the same is a duty of the Court in terms of Section 26 of the Act by passing such interim orders with respect to their maintenance to the extent as the court may deem fit; but learned counsel rightly points out that no separate maintenance has been quantified in favour of the two children in the order. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the revision application is allowed. The order dated 22.11.2006 passed by the Court below is set aside and the matter is remanded to the court below to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 8. Needless to say that any order of interim maintenance, if granted, should be from the date of the order dated 22.11.2006 itself and only the question as to whether the interim maintenance is to be granted, and, if so, to what extent, has to be considered by the court below on the basis of prima facie material on the record and after hearing the parties. 9. 9. So far as the maintenance to the children is concerned, it is open to the court below to quantify the same and allow the amount from the date of the said order, i.e., 22.11.2006 itself.