( 1 ) MR. M. JAGANNADHA Rao learned Counsel appearing for the appellant relying upon Akasam China Babu v. Akasam Parbati and another, contended that the lower Court went wrong in granting interim maintenance not only to the respondent but also to her son contrary to what is laid down in section 24 of the hindu Marriage Act.

( 2 ) IT is also contended by him that the interim maintenance of Rs. 45 awarded to the respondent and her son, as also the legal expenses of Rs. 100 go far beyond reasonable maintenance to be awarded on the facts of the case.

( 3 ) SO far as the first point is concerned, it has to be noticed that while granting maintenance pendente lite to the wife or to the husband, as the case may be, regard should also be had to section 26. While section 24 of the Act provides for granting maintenance to the wife or the husband, as the case may be, section 26 speaks of passing interim orders and also making provision in the decree by the court with regard to custody, maintenance and education of the minor children consistently with their wishes. When the wife makes an application under section 24 of the Act to the Court for the grant of interim maintenance t