THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3556 OF 2011 ORDER : 1. The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 12.07.2011 in I.A. No.19 of 2011 in M.O.P. No.47 of 2010 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Adoni, Kurnool District. 2. The petitioner herein is husband and father respectively of the respondents 1 and 2, who filed M.O.P. No.47 of 2010 before the court below for divorce and made I.A. No.19 of 2011 therein, under Sections 24 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, ‘HM Act’) for grant of interim maintenance. Vide the impugned order, the court below allowed the interlocutory application granting Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- respectively to the respondents 1 and 2 towards interim maintenance. Challenging the same, the present revision is preferred by the petitioner-husband. 3. Heard both sides. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of the decision of this Court in Arvind Chenji v. Krishnaveni[1], children are not entitled to maintenance under Section 24 of the HM Act, pending disposal of the main Original Petition for divorce under Section 13 of the HM Act. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that under Section 26 of the HM Act, interim maintenance can also be ordered to the children and hence the impugned order needs no interference. 5. Grant of maintenance during pendency of the Original Petition, is entirely within the discretion of the Court. The discretion has to be exercised judiciously duly taking note of the income of the husband, status of the parties and such other circumstances which are relevant for the purpose of granting the interim maintenance. The decision in Arvind Chenji’s case (1 supra) relied on by the learned counsel for petitioner, Section 26 of the HM Act has not come up for consideration before this Court. 6. Section 24 of the HM Act reads thus: “Maintenance pendent elite 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 proceeding, 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.” As seen from the above provision, it is clear that a reasonable sum can be ordered to be paid to either of the spouse who has no independent income. Though interim maintenance cannot be granted under Section 24 of the HM Act to children, certainly it can be granted to the children in view of Section 26 of the Act. Section 26 of the HM Act reads thus: “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. Whenever 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.” From the above provision, it is clear that interim orders can be passed by a Court as it deems just and proper with respect to the maintenance of the child. 6. By virtue of the impugned order, an amount of Rs.10,000/- was granted to the first respondent, who is wife, and Rs.5,000/- was granted to the second respondent, who is son, of the petitioner. It is not in dispute before this Court that the petitioner is working as a Software Engineer in a Multi-national Company and on his own admission, he is getting Rs.67,000/- per month as salary. Granting of 1/3rd of the income of the petitioner as interim maintenance to the wife and child, cannot be said to be on higher side. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the respondents herein have no source of income, the court rightly granted the interim maintenance and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 7. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. However, the trial Court is directed to dispose of M.O.P. No.47 of 2010 as expeditiously as possible subject to other pending old and part heard. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 20.10.2011 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3556 OF 2011 20.10.2011 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3556 OF 2011 DATED 20.10.2011 Between: J.Madhusudhan Rao …Petitioner And C.Naga Sudha Ranu & another …Respondents [1] 2010 (1) ALT 395