IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR / WRIT PETITION N0. E15“ 7 _/2003 PETITIONER : Annapurna Sharma, W/o Kishore r ’ Kumar Sharma aged 30 years, R/a M.I;G.1f592, Amdi Nagar; HUDCO, Bhilaig District Durg (C.G.). ~VERSUS— WRIT UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A SUITABLE WRIT, ORDERS OR DIRECTION. RESPONDENTS 1, Kishore Kumar Sharmm S/o Kushal Ram Shanna, aged about 35 years, Occupatid§f§ervice (presently working in the Bhilai Steel Plant), Rio Chikhli, Tahsil y . @Jx & District Rajnandgzion» (C.G.) qkfw? ... 3. 3i Ashok Ingole, aged about 45 e? 0%” years, Occupation-Service é Q? '/ (prasently working in Bhilai Steel Plant), Rlo M.I.G’1f208, Amdi e ‘e‘ g¢ Nagar, HUDCO, Bhnai, District Durg (C.G.) é C\ - ’ “5 PETITIONER r : Annapuna Sharma Vers su RESPONDENTS S nth : Kishore Kumarharma and aoer u tr?” 5? Shri Rajeev Shrivastava with‘Shri Malay Shrivastav counsel for the petitioner. Shri ushobhit Singh, counsel for respondent No. 1. S ” 06.12.201) ChaHenge in this writ petition is to the order passed by the trial curt o is in seisin of the proceedings initiated by the husband o wh under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, hereinafter referred as Act. (2) In the said proceedings the petitioner/wife moved an application under section 24 of the Act seeking interim maintenanc for herself and for her inor son as also the litigation expenses. m (3) Lrned trial coult as allowed amoun of Rs. 1500/- per ea h t mont as nterim ainenance and an amount of s.1000/-'towards h i mt R litigation expenses to be paid by the respondent No.1/husband. The »= interim maintenance has not been allowed in favour of minor son on / i ‘ the ground that the said prayer for interim maintenance under section HIGH COURT OF CHIIATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Honble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra VVrit Petition N0. 3757/2003 Appearance: a WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORAL ORDER (0 e @f) ri' 24 of the Act cannot be cdnsidered in proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act. (4) Learned counsel for the petitioner, has placed reliance on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jasbir Kam- Sehgal Vs. District Judge, Dehradun and others (1997) 7 SCC 7. Referring to para 6 of the judgment learned counsel wouldavsubmit that the law has been settled that in proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act interim maintenance under section 24 of the said Act can be granted to the minor children. It is also submitted that the amount of maintenance awarded to the petitioner is also on the lower side when comparing with the salary ofthe respondent No.1. (5) Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that at the relevant time the salary of the respondent No.1 was Rs.8000/—, however learned trial court has taken the montly salary as Rs.10,000/. He would also submit that the child is being paid maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/— ordered by the Judicial Magistrate First Class in proceedings under section 125 of Cr.P.C. According to hi'rn considering totality of the circumstances, the present is not a fit case for interference. (6) Right and entitlement ofthe child to claim interim maintenance undersection 24 of Hindu Marriage Act has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jasbir Kaur Sehgal Vs. District Judge, Dehradun and others (supra) thus learned trial court could not have rejected the prayer for interim maintenance made on behalf of the \ child out rightly without considering entire aspect of the matter. However, since learned counsel ifor respondent No.1 has submitted that an amount of Rs.500/- is being paid to the child as per order passed in proceedings under section 125 of Cr.P.C., as also on account of submission made by the petitioner that the amount of maintenance at Rs.l500/— per month allowed in favour of petitioner . ; 2x is on lower side, and also the fact that the order was passed in the year 2003, this court deems it proper to direct the trial court to consider the matter afresh after giving both the parties opportunity to make submission and produce documentsin support of their respective cases for enhancement of maintenance to the petitioner and for grant of maintenance to the minor child {7) If such an application is made, it will be decided on its own merit within a period of three months from the date of submission of certified copy of this order. (8) The writ petition stands disposed of in above terms. ##""t’##’#nnnnnr Sdl- s é l Prashant Kumar Mishrarv ‘ Judge Q