The court has the power to grant maintenance to the children of the litigating spouses under S.26 of the Hindu Marriage Act in any proceeding under the Act.

1. The revision petitioner challenges the order of the Sub Court, Trichur in I.A. No. 1359 of 1985 in H.M.O.P. 28 of 1985. The respondent (wife) filed the petition claiming ad-interim maintenance for herself and her two children and also litigation expenses from her husband. The learned Sub Judge allowed that application and the husband was directed to pay Rs. 150/- per mensem as maintenance to his wife and Rs. 75/-per mensem each to his two children. He was also directed to pay Rs.500/- towards the litigation expenses.

2. The revision petitioner filed H.M.O.P.28 of 1985 under S.9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights against the respondent. Admittedly they have two children. The respondent filed I.A. 1359 of 1985 under S.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act claiming ad-interim maintenance of Rs. 1,300/- per month for herself and her two children and also a sum of Rs. 1,000/- towards litigation expenses.

3. The main contention of the revision petitioner is that the children are not entitled to get ad-interim maintenance in a petition filed under S.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is argued that a plain reading of S.24 of the Act would clearly show that wife or husband alone can claim maintenance pendente lite and expenses of the proceedings and hence it is patent that the order of the court allowing maintenance to the children is wholly unjustified. Counsel relied on A.I.R. 1981 Jammu & Kashmir 5 (Puran Chand v. Kamla Devi) and A.I.R. 1982 Orissa 270 (Purusottam Das Agarwala v. Smt. Puspa Devi) in support of the aforesaid contention. Counsel urged that on a plain interpretation of S.24 of the Act, children are not entitled to get maintenance in a proceeding initiated by either of the spouses. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the above decisions have not considered the ambit of S.26 of the Act and it does not lay down the correct law. Relying on A.I.R 1981 Karnataka 115 (Smt. Subhasini v. B.R. Umakanth), A.I.R. 1976 Karnataka 215 (Dr. D. Thimmappa v. Nagaveni) and A.I.R. 1982 Andhra Pradesh 100 (Narendra Kumar v. Suraj Mehta) counsel contended that the order of the court below granting maintenance to the children is perfectly in order.

4. The question that has to be considered is as to whether the order of the court granting maintenance to the children of the respondent is legally sustainable. S.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act empowers the court to grant maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings to either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, when it is found that the person claiming maintenance has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and to meet the necessary expenses of the proceeding. It is true that S.24 does not make any mention about granting of maintenance to the children of the spouses. S.26 of the Act postulates that in any proceeding under the Act, the court may, from time to time, pass such interim orders and make such provisions in the decree as it may deem just and proper with respect to the custody, maintenance and education of minor children. The decisions reported in A.I.R. 1982 Orissa 270 and A.I.R. 1981 Jammu & Kashmir 5 relied on by the petitioner have not considered whether the court could invoke S.26 of the Act and grant maintenance to the children of the litigating spouses. S.26 of the Act makes the position very clear that in any proceeding under the Act, the court can pass interim orders and make provisions in the decree as it may deem just and proper with respect to the custody, maintenance and education of minor children. A petition filed under S.24 cannot be considered in isolation and the court cannot altogether ignore S.26 of the Act in a case where maintenance of the children is also claimed. In I.A. 1359, of 1985, respondent has claimed maintenance not only for herself but also for her minor children. It is also averred in the petition that her husband was not maintaining them for the past seven months. When such a petiti