JUDGMENT J. K. Maheshwari, J. :- This is an appeal under section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short "the Act of 1955") against the order dated 16-11-2010 passed by 1st Additional Principal Judge. Family Court, Indore in Miscellaneous Case No. 175/2010. 2. Briefly stated, the appellant and respondent were married-on 2-5-1993. Out of their wedlock, they have two daughters However; on account of differences between the appellant and the respondent, they started living separately and submitted an application under section 13-B of the Act of 1955 seeking divorce by mutual consent. The 1st Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore vide judgment and decree dated 24-2-2009 passed in Hindu Marriage Case No. 55/2008 allowed the joint prayer made by the appellant and the respondent and granted a decree of divorce by mutual consent. As regards the children, while passing the decree, the Court below made following arrangement about the custody and the visitation rights :- 3. When the matter stood thus, after about an year the appellant-husband submitted an application by invoking the provisions of section 26 of the Act of 1955 seeking custody of the children. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 16-11-2010 holding it to be not maintainable. The Review Petition filed by the appellant also suffered dismissal vide order dated 20-5-2011. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has filed this appeal. 4. Having gone through the order dated 16-11-2010 passed by the trial Court, we find that the trial Court was of the view that the provisions contained in section 26 of the Act of 1955 Caving been once invoked by the parties and a decree of divorce making arrangement for the custody of children having been passed on 24-2-2009 the subsequent application under section 26 of the Act of 1955 filed by the appellant after passing of the decree will not be maintainable. 5. We find ourselves unable to agree with the view taken by the trial Court. 6. Section 26 of the Act of 1955 deals "with custody of children. It reads thus :- "Section 26. Custody of children. 5. We find ourselves unable to agree with the view taken by the trial Court. 6. Section 26 of the Act of 1955 deals "with custody of children. It reads thus :- "Section 26. Custody of children. - In any proceeding under this Act, the Court may, from time to time, pass such interim orders and make such provisions in the decree as it may deem just and proper with respect to the custody, maintenance and education of minor children, consistently with their wishes, wherever possible, and may, after the decree, upon application by petition for the purpose, make from time to time, all such orders and provisions with respect to the custody, maintenance and education of such children as might have been made by such decree or interim orders in case the proceeding for obtaining such decree were still pending, and the Court may also from time to time revoke, suspend or vary any such orders and provisions previously made." On a plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that the Court in any proceeding under this Act is empowered to pass such interim orders and make such provisions in the decree as it may deem just and proper with respect to the custody, maintenance and education of minor children, consistently with their wishes, wherever possible, and may, after the decree, upon application by petition for the purpose, make from time to time, all such orders and provisions with respect to the custody, maintenance and education of such children as might have been made such decree or interim orders in case the proceedings for obtaining such decree were still pending, and the Court may also from time to time revoke, suspend or vary any such orders and provisions previously made. 7. In the circumstances, it is clear that even after the decree the Court is empowered upon application to make the order in regard to the custody, maintenance and education and is empowered from time to time to revoke, suspend or vary any such orders. 8. Having regard to the aforesaid clear provision contained in section 26 of the Act, 1955 in our considered view, the trial Court has committed error in rejecting the appellant's application filed under section 26 of the Act of 1955 holding it to be not maintainable. 8. Having regard to the aforesaid clear provision contained in section 26 of the Act, 1955 in our considered view, the trial Court has committed error in rejecting the appellant's application filed under section 26 of the Act of 1955 holding it to be not maintainable. The impugned order runs contrary to the provisions contained in section 26 of the Act of 1955 and as such the impugned order dated 16-11-2010 passed by the trial Court and also the order dated 20-5-2011 passed in review petition deserve to be and are hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the trial Court for deciding it afresh in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. The appellant to appear before the trial Court on 18-3-2013. C.C. by tomorrow. Order accordingly.