The main legal point established is the interpretation and application of Sections 24 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, emphasizing the duty of a parent to maintain their child and the wide power of the court to make maintenance orders.

S. B. Sinha, J.

1. This application is directed against the order dated 26-7-1990 passed by the District Judge, Singhbhum at Chaibassa in matrimonial Suit No.64 of 1988 whereby any whereunder the said learned court granted interim maintenance @ Rs.500/- per month and Rs.200/-per month as cost of proceeding to the opposite party.

2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass :-

The plaintiff/petitioner filed an application for divorce in terms of section 13 (1) (ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred to and called for the sake of brevity as the said Act) as against the opposite party inter alia on the ground that she is guilty of desertion of the petitioner as also on the ground of cruelty and misbehaviour on her part.

3 In the said proceeding, the opposite-party filed a written statement on 27-3-1990 denying and disputing the allegations made in the said application. In the said proceeding the opposite party filed an application under Sec.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 , is contained in (sic)application wherein inter alia it was alleged that she had been deserted by the petitioner in the year 1981 without making any provisions for her rnaintenanee. It was further alleged that the opposite party was provided with a provisional job by Kalyan Niketan A. I. W. C. on payment of gross salary of Rs.600/- (Net salary Rs.550/- per month), out of which she has to pay a sum of Rs.225/- towards house rent ; a sum of Rs.50/- to the private tutor of the child and Rs.25/- by way of school expenses. In the said application the opposite party further stated :-

"that the petitioner is a permanent employee in TISCO Deptt. Structural Shop, Personal No.67707 gets Rs.2500/- per month working for whole month. "

4. The petitioner filed a rejoinder to the said application which is contained in Annexure-2 to the civil revision application wherein inter alia it was stated that the petitioner had all along been ready and willing to take the child to his own protection and look after his care and development. It was further alleged that it is difficult to believe that the opposite party is spending Rs.225/- per month towards house rent while getting rs.550/- per month as salary. It was further alleged that the opposite party had all along been living at quarter No.42 Cross road No.13, sidhgora and the petitioner was not aware as to under what circumstances, the opposite party had vacated the said house and is living in a rented house.

5. In reply to paragraph 10 of the application filed by the opposite party, the petitioner stated thus :-

"that the statements occurring in paragraph 10 of the petition are denied. The basic salary of the petitioner is Rs.1107.00. The earning of the petitioner as shown in the said paragraph is highly inflated. The respondent is well aware that the petitioner wants to undertake a course of Ph. D. in Economics and his research work in this connection, frequently takes him to ranchi and Calcutta etc. The petitioner is, therefore, rarely able to attend to his duties in the TISCO Ltd. , for the whole month and the average monthly income of the petitioner has never travelled beyond Rs.1250/- per month approximately. The father of the petitioner is aged and infirm and is wholly dependant on the (sic) to his pre-occupation in his academical activities the petitioner has to remain satisfied with a low earning from bis salary, and the money which comes to hands of the petitioner per month is hardly sufficient for his own needs. "

6. Before the learned court below apart from the petition and rejoinder filed by the parties aforementioned, the pay sheet of the petitioner was filed, from a perusal whereof it appears that in the month of february, 1990, the petitioder worked for about 15 days and received a sum of Rs.1350/- by way of emoluments.

7. Mr. S. K. Chattopadhyay, learrned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the opposite party is not living with him since 1981