S.Sankarasubban, J :

This C.R.P having been finally heard on 17.7.01, the court on the same day passed the following :

Petitioner challenges the order passed in I.A.No.1337 of 1998 in M.O.P.No.153 of 1997 on the file of the Sub court, Palakkad. In the impugned order, the court has granted maintenance to the wife and child at Rs.500/- and Rs.350/- respectively, and Rs.1000/- towards litigation expenses. By an interim order, this court imposed a condition to deposit an amount of Rs.3,000/-. By another order dated 12.3.1999, the respondents were allowed to withdraw the amount so deposited.

2.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even though under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, a wife is entitled to claim maintenance against the husband, that section does not provide maintenance for any other person. Hence, an order of maintenance cannot be made except for the either of the spouses before the court. Any how, counsel for the petitioner submitted that under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, it is the duty of the father to maintain the minor child and in that view of the matter, the father may be liable to maintain the minor child. Counsel for the petitioner in fairness brought to our notice the decision of the Supreme Court in Jasbir Kaur Sehgal V. district Judge, Dehradun, The Honourable Supreme court at paragraph 6 of the judgment has stated thus :

"The fact remains that the wife has no source of income and she is also maintaining her eldest unmarried daughter. Under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 it is the obligation of a person to maintain his unmarried daughter if she is unable to maintain herself. In this case, since the wife has no income of her own, it is the obligation of the husband to maintain her and her two unmarried daughters, one of whom is living with his wife and one with him. Section 24 of the Act no doubt talks of maintenance of the wife during the pendency of the proceedings but this section, in our view, cannot be read in isolation and cannot be given restricted meaning to hold that it is the maintenance of the wife alone and no one else. Since the wife is maintaining the eldest unmarried daughter, her right to claim maintenance would include her own maintenance and that of her daughter. This fact has to be kept in view while fixing the maintenance pendente lite for the wife."

In this case, there is no case for the petitioner that he is maintaining the child. The child is aged two years. Hence, even though the court below has not given the reasons, the finding given by the court below has to be upheld, for the reasons given by the Supreme court in Jasbir Kaur Sehgal's case (supra). Since the child is being maintained by the wife, petitioner has to pay to the wife the amount for the maintenance of the child also. In the above view of the matter, there is no illegality or irregularity in the order impugned. It is made clear the order passed in this revision will not have any bearing in the final disposal of the O.P. The court below shall dispose of the O.P. expeditiously.

With the above observations, the C.R.P is disposed off.