Main Search Premium Members Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 1 docs
Section 24 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Citedby 24 docs - [View All]
Pandian Alias Ganesan vs Suganthi on 29 October, 1996
Pandian Alias Ganesan vs Suganthi on 29 October, 1996
Pandian Alias Ganesan vs Suganthi on 29 October, 1996
Pandian @ Ganesan vs Suganthi on 29 October, 1996
Amrit Lal Nehru vs Usha Nehru on 5 April, 1982

User Queries
Try out the Virtual Legal Assistant to take your notes as you use the website, build your case briefs and professionally manage your legal research. Also try out our Query Alert Service and enjoy an ad-free experience. Premium Member services are free for one month and pay only if you like it.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Puran Chand vs Mst. Kamla Devi on 4 April, 1980
Equivalent citations: AIR 1981 J K 5
Bench: M B Farooqi

JUDGMENT Mufti Baha-Ud-Din Farooqi, Ag. C.J.

1. Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, reads thus:

"Where in any proceeding under this Act it appears to the court that either the wife or husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife or the husband, order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding, 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."

2. On a plain interpretation of this section, a child born out of the wed-lock between litigating husband and wife is not entitled to maintenace pendente lite. Such maintenance can be granted in favour of the wife or the husband as the case may be. The maintenance is to be allowed on monthly basis "during the proceeding". The words "during the proceedings" connote that the maintenance shall be admissible from the commencement till the conclusion of the proceedings in the trial court. The proceedings in the trial court would na1 urally commence from the date on which the issues are framed, which is ordinarily known as the first hearing. In the view expressed above, the lower court was not justified in allowing maintenance, pendente lite in favour of Raian, the minor daughter of the parties. Nor even in allowing such maintenance in favour of the wife from the date of the filing of the petition.

3. The court ought to have disallowed the request for maintenance pendente lite in so far as Rajan was concerned, and allowed the same in favour of the wife from the date the issues were struck. Allowing this appeal, I modify the order accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.