JUDGMENT Vineet Saran, J.
1. The petitioner No. 1 Smt. Bindu Devi and respondent No. 2 Mahendra Prasad were married on 26.2.1990. Mahendra Prasad filed Original Suit No. 54 of 2001 for decree of divorce on the ground of the petitioner No. 1 having deserted him. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner No. 1-wife as well as petitioner No. 2-minor son filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 claiming maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month for the wife and Rs. 2,500/- per month for minor son plus a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as lump sum amount towards litigation expenses. This amount was claimed on the basis that the husband was employed as a Junior Engineer and was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month, besides having agricultural income to the tune of about Rs. 25,000/- per month. The husband filed objections claiming that, though he was a Junior Engineer in the Irrigation Department and was getting salary of about Rs. 6,000- 7,000/- per month but, he also had the liability to maintain his aged parents, younger sisters and brothers. It was further stated by the husband that the petitioner No. 1 was a post graduate and was running a coaching institute, from which she had earning of Rs. 10,000-15,000/- per month. Besides this, it was also stated that the parents of the wife as well to do persons and were fully capable of maintaining the petitioners.
2. After holding that the husband could not prove the independent source of income of the wife, the trial court, on the basis of the income admitted by the petitioner as Rs. 6,000-7000/- per month, awarded a meagre sum of Rs. 500/- per month as maintenance for the wife and Rs. 2,000/- as lump sum amount towards litigation expenses. The maintenance to the minor son was denied on the ground that the same was not within the ambit of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 25.11.2002 the petitioners have filed this writ petition with the prayer that the petitioner No. 1 be granted Rs. 5,000/- per month as maintenance and petitioner No. 2 Rs. 2,500/- per month as maintenance, besides a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards litigation expenses etc.
3. I have heard Sri P.K. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Sri M.A. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 (husband) and have perused the record. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of the; learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at. the admission stage itself.
4. The first point which needs consideration of this Court is as to whether minor son (petitioner No. 2) would be entitled to maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
5. Section 24 of the said Act reads as under:-
"24. Maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings.- Where in any proceedings under this Act it appears to the court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceedings, it may, on the application of the wife or the husband, order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceedings, and monthly during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioner's own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the court to be reasonable."
6. Though strictly, maintenance under this provision can be claimed only by the wife or the husband, but read with Section 26 of the Act, dependent children can be included for the purposes of grant of maintenance, even if in the application it may not have been mentioned that it is also being filed under Section 26. The child, who is admittedly living with the mother who has no independent source of livelihood, will have to be maintained by her. It cannot be conceived that the mother would maintain herself and neglect the child. Thus, social justice demands that the law, which is for the well being of society, should be interpreted in such a manner so that full justice is given to the parties. Denying maintenance to the dependent child living with the mother, would amount to denial of justice to the child, who in this case is a minor.
7. The matter of payment of maintenance of the minor child came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun . In paragraph 6 of the said judgment it has been observed that ". . . . In this case since the wife has no income of her own, it is the obligation of the husband to maintain her and her two unmarried daughters, one of whom is living with his wife and one with him. Section 24 of the Act no doubt talks of maintenance of the wife during the pendency of the proceedings but this section, in our view, cannot be read in isolation and cannot be given restricted meaning to hold that it is the maintenance of the wife alone and no one else. Since the wife is maintaining the eldest unmarried daughter, her right to claim maintenance would include her own maintenance and that of her daughter. This fact has to be kept in view while fixing the maintenance pendente lite for the wife...." It was also observed that although there is no set formula which can be laid for fixing the amount of maintenance, which would be dependent on various factors but "the Court has to consider the status of the parties, their respective needs, the capacity of the husband to pay having regard to his reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and of those he is obliged under the law...." After holding that the husband had monthly income of Rs. 20,000/- per month, the Apex Court fixed the interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month.
8. Thus, on consideration of the provisions of Section 24 read with Section 26 of the Act and also keeping in view the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court, the answer to the first point under consideration would be that the grant of maintenance to the minor child living with the mother, would be within the ambit of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
9. In the present case, the husband is a Junior Engineer in the Irrigation Department of the State Government, which is a Class III post. On enquiries made by this Court, it is revealed that a Class III employee, as of today, carries a total salary of over Rs. 10,000 / per month, besides other perquisites. The contention of the respondent that he has to maintain his aged parents and his brothers and sisters does not have much force. In paragraph 10 of the writ petition it has been categorically stated that the father of respondent No. 2 is an Assistant Engineer in the U.P. Power Corporation and is posted at Mirzapur as Sub-Divisional Officer. There is no specific denial to the said assertion except for that it has vaguely been stated in the counter affidavit that the said plea had never been raised before the trial court. In such circumstances when the father of the husband is serving as Assistant Engineer in a government Corporation, the respondent No. 2 would not be obliged to support his parents or his brothers and sisters.
10. The maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month, as granted by the trial court is ridiculously low, considering the status of the parties and the earning capacity of the husband. It is a matter of common knowledge that in the present circumstances, not even a domestic servant can maintain himself and his child merely on the support of Rs. 500/- per month.
11. After arriving at a conclusion that the husband has been unable to prove that the wife is running any coaching classes, once the Trial court has held that the petitioner No. 1 (wife) does not have any independent source of income, even if it is presumed that the parents of the wife are well to do persons, they cannot be made responsible for her maintenance and that of her minor son, especially when she is married to respondent No. 2. The trial court thus rightly held that the liability of maintaining the wife and minor child is that of the husband. Although there are claims and counter claims by the parties with regard to the monthly income of the husband, the wife inflating the same and the husband suppressing it, this Court has to arrive at the amount which could only be on the basis of conjectures and guess work viz. the estimated income of the husband. Even if the agricultural income is not added to his income, the salary (with other perks) of the husband would be somewhere in the region of Rs. 10,000-12,000/-. With this income, this Court has to see that the amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live with dignity and in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband. At the same time, the amount so fixed should not be excessive or exorbitant. Considering the status of the family and the income of the husband, an amount of Rs. 2,000/- for the maintenance of wife-petitioner No. 1 and Rs. 1,000/- per month as maintenance for the minor son-petitioner No. 2 would be just and equitable in the facts of the present case. Besides this, considering the litigation expenses in this country, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as lump sum amount for litigation expenses would be just and proper.
12. The discretion lies with the Court as to whether from which date the said maintenance is to be paid. The trial court has awarded maintenance amount from the date of order i.e. 25.11.2002. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I am not inclined to interfere with this direction exercised by the trial court. As such, the petitioners No. 1 and 2 would be entitled to maintenance amount of Rs. 2,000/- per month and Rs. 1,000/- per month respectively with effect from 25.11.2002, besides a consolidated sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation expenses. The respondent No. 2-husband shall pay the arrears within three months from today, failing which the petitioners will be entitled to 9% interest from 25.11.2002 till date of payment. The current maintenance amount shall be paid with effect from October, 2005 regularly month by month. The amount already paid in pursuance of the order passed by the trial court, and thereafter, the interim order granted by this Court on 24.5.2004, shall be adjusted towards the final payment of arrears to be made by the husband. The impugned judgment and order of the trial court shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
13. Before parting with this case, it may be observed that the suit for decree of divorce is pending before the trial court since the year 2001. It is expected that such matters should be decided expedition sly. As such, it may be observed that the trial court shall make every endeavour to decide the suit as early as possible, without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties. In case if, either of the parties files an application for expeditious hearing of the case before the District Judge, Ghazipur, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law, after taking into account the urgency of the case and also the number of cases which are pending on the Board of the trial court.