*HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO + C.R.P.NO.1575 OF 2011 % Date: 22.09.2011 BETWEEN: # Meka Prakash .. Petitioner And $ Smt Meka Deepa Rani and another .. Respondents ! Counsel for petitioner: Sri B.Lakshman ^ Counsel for respondents: Sri Ch.Janardhan Reddy < GIST: >HEAD NOTE: ? Cases referred: [1] ALT 2010(1) 395 2 AIR 1982 AP 100 3 2005(6) SCC 619 HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.R.P.NO.1575 OF 2011 DATED: 22.09.2011 BETWEEN: Meka Prakash .. Petitioner And Smt Meka Deepa Rani and another .. Respondents HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.R.P.NO.1575 OF 2011 ORDER: This civil revision petition is filed against the order dated 28.03.2011 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Kamareddy in I.A.No.306 of 2010 in O.P.No.17 of 2010. 2. I have heard Sri B.Laxman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Ch. Janardhan Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents. 3. The revision petitioner-husband filed the main O.P against the first respondent-wife for dissolution of marriage. The first respondent-wife and second respondent who is her minor son, aged 8 years filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for interim maintenance and litigation expenses pending disposal of the main O.P. The learned Senior Civil Judge after making an enquiry into the application, granted interim maintenance to the first respondent-wife at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month and to the second respondent-son at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month and also granted litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-. 4. The relationship of the parties is admitted. It is also an admitted fact that the revision petitioner is working as Branch Manager in State Bank of Hyderabad, Nizamsagar Branch, Hyderabad. In her application, the first respondent claimed maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month for her and Rs.5,000/- per month for her minor son-second respondent. She pleaded in her petition that the revision petitioner, who is working as Branch Manager in the State Bank of Hyderabad is getting monthly salary of Rs.40,000/- besides doing finance business and getting rents of Rs.10,000/- per month. The revision petitioner contended that he is not drawing monthly salary of Rs.40,000/- and that he is also not doing any finance business and getting no income towards any rents. His version is that except the salary, he has no source of income. He also contended that the first respondent is working as a teacher in a private school and getting salary of Rs.4,000/- to Rs.5,000/- per month which is sufficient for her to maintain herself and also to maintain the second respondent. But, the revision petitioner did not adduce any evidence in proof of the fact that the first respondent-wife is working as a teacher in a private school and getting salary of Rs.5,000/-. Further, he also did not file his salary certificate to prove that his salary is not Rs.40,000/- as pleaded by the respondents. 5. Since the revision petitioner is working as Branch Manager in State Bank of Hyderabad, if really his salary is not Rs.40,000/-, he ought to have filed the salary certificate and the learned trial Court therefore, rightly concluded that from the non-filing of the salary certificate and taking into consideration of the salary of a Branch Manager of a scheduled bank held that the salary of the revision petitioner must not be less than Rs.40,000/- per month. 6. If the salary of the revision petitioner is Rs.40,000/- per month and then in view of the fact that the revision petitioner did not adduce any evidence in proof of the first respondent-wife getting any income and also in view of the price rise in the present days and also the fact that the second respondent is a school going boy, granting maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- to the first respondent and Rs.3,000/- to the second respondent is not on higher side and granting litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- concerning the fact that one of the advocates is no other than the brother of the first respondent is also reasonable. 7. The main contention raised by the revision petitioner is that in an application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, claiming maintenance, only spouse is entitled for interim maintenance and that the children are not entitled for interim maintenance under the said provision. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner on ARVIND CHENJI VS KRISNAVENI[1] wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court held that only wife has locus standi to file application under Section 24 of the Act for maintenance pendente lite and in the judgment, the learned Judge at para 13, held as follows:. “In the instant case, the petitioner filed OP under Section 13 of the Act. It was certainly competent for the respondent to file an application under Section 24 of the Act. May be, on account of wrong advise, IA No.101 of 2001 was filed, not only on behalf of the respondent, but also on behalf of the children, of herself and the petitioner. Such a step was totally impermissible in law. Be that as it may, the petitioner was held entitled to be paid a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month. It is a matter of record, that the OP was allowed on 28.6.2005. The language of Section 24 of the Act, makes it clear that the maintenance granted under it, is during the pendency of the proceedings before the Court. Axiomatically, once the proceedings are disposed of, the arrangement, as to payment of maintenance also comes to an end. It is not as if that the aggrieved party is without any remedy. Claim can be made for permanent alimony, or an application can be filed under Section 125 Cr.PC.” But, in NARENDRA KUMAR MEHTA v SURAJ MEHTA[2] the Division Bench of this Court held that not only the wife, but the minor children are also entitled for the interim maintenance on the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 8. Further, in RITA DUTTA AND ANOTHER v. SUBHENDU DUTTA[3] the Supreme Court affirmed the order passed by the High Court granting interim maintenance to the wife as well as to the minor son in an application filed by her under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Though, the main contention before the Supreme Court was about the quantum of maintenance granted in favour of the wife as well as minor child, the Supreme Court had not disapproved grant of interim maintenance to the minor son under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 9. From the judgment of the Supreme Court, which was also relied upon by the learned trial Court it is obvious that not only the wife, but the minor children are also entitled for interim maintenance in an application under Section 24 of the Act. The contention raised by the revision petitioner-husband that the minor son is not entitled for interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act has no substance. The order passed by the learned Court below under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act which is impugned in this revision, does not require any interference either in regard to the quantum of maintenance or litigation expenses and the right of minor son for entitlement of maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. There being no irregularity or illegality in the order dated 28.03.2011 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Kamareddy in I.A.No.306 of 2010 in O.P.No.17 of 2010, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ Date: 22.09.2011 R. KANTHA RAO, J Note: L.R copy to be marked b/o kvrm HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.R.P.NO.1575 OF 2011 DATE: 22.09.2011 [1] ALT 2010(1) 395 [2] AIR 1982 AP 100 [3] 2005(6) SCC 619