C.R. No. 3650 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 3650 of 2009 Date of Decision: July 6, 2009 Smt.Rajinder Kaur …..Petitioner Vs. Yadwinder Singh …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.Dharam Pal, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Petitioner is wife of respondent. Her application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, (for short ‘the Act’), is pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division). Vide impugned order dated May 29, 2009, her application under Section 24 of the Act claiming Rs.10000/- as litigation expenses and a sum of Rs.5000/- per month as maintenance of the minor daughter has been dismissed. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the wife is entitled to the maintenance pendente lite for the minor child under the provisions of C.R. No. 3650 of 2009 [2] Section 24 of the Act. The Lower Court has erred in not granting any maintenance pendente lite for the child. Counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of Anu Kaul Vs. Rajeev Kaul, 2009 (2) CCC 545 (SC), wherein the amount of Rs.10000/- granted as interim maintenance to the wife who was also looking after the minor child by the High Court, was enhanced by the Apex Court taking into consideration the exorbitant fee structure and cost of living etc. After hearing counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that no prejudice has been caused to the rights of the child to claim maintenance through her natural guardian under the other provisions of law as such no ground is made out for interference in the impugned order. The lower Court has not given any reason for denying litigation expenses to the petitioner which had been claimed to the extent of Rss.10000/-. Since the petitioner is in Government service and her earnings are equivalent to the earnings of her husband, she may not be entitled to any interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Act but litigation expenses should not have been denied by the trial Court. This petition is disposed of by modifying the order dated May 29, 2009 directing that the petitioner will be entitled to a sum of Rs.10000/- as claimed by her as litigation expenses. So far as the rights of the minor child of the petitioner are concerned, it will be open to the petitioner to avail other alternative remedies available to her to get the maintenance for the minor which is being maintained by the petitioner. C.R. No. 3650 of 2009 [3] Counsel for the petitioner insists that in view of the judgment of Rajinder Singh Vs. Rajinder Kaur, 2002 (1) CCC 170 (P&H), the minor children can be awarded maintenance pendente lite while exercising jurisdiction under Section 24 of the Act. I have considered the said judgment and I am of the opinion that it has not been laid down as principle on the basis of interpretation of Section 24 of the Act that minor children are entitled to maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Act. It is not out of place to observe here that the spouse who is maintaining the minor child may raise before the Court of competent jurisdiction the factors entitling her/ him to get maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Act. The maintenance of minor children by that spouse may be one of the factors or ground for getting the interim maintenance pendente lite under Section 24 of the Act. In the present case as it has not been pleaded in detail in application under Section 24 of the Act the various heads under which the minor child wanted independent maintenance as such rights of the child cannot be prejudiced in any manner by deciding her rights in an application under Section 24 of the Act as the child is independently entitled to maintenance under other provisions by filing a petition through her natural guardian. As the rights of the minor child have not been considered as such no prejudice seems to have been caused to the minor child. Dismissed. July 6, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE