Antony Dominic, J.

1. Petitioner in O.P.(FC) No.1675/2013 is the husband and the petitioner in O.P.(FC) No.1699 is the wife. Both of them are challenging the order of the Family Court, Thrissur in I.A. No.1798/2012 in O.P. No.880/211. For convenience, we shall refer to the parties as husband and wife and refer to the facts pleaded and documents produced in O.P. No.1699/2013 filed by the wife.

2. O.P. No.880/2011 was filed by the husband seeking a decree for the dissolution of the marriage on the ground that the wife is suffering from unsoundness of mind of incurable nature. In that O.P. the wife filed I.A.No.1798/2012, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P1, under section 36 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short) claiming alimony of Rs.10,000/- for herself and Rs.7,500/-for the male child. Further she also claimed Rs.25,000/-towards litigation expenses.

According to the wife, her husband is the owner of a restaurant and an auditorium at Cheruthuruthy. It is also stated that his father is a Doctor who has established a full-fledged hospital at Cheruthuruthy and that he is helping his father. According to the wife, husband has a monthly income of Rs.75,000/-.

3. Ext.P2 is the counter statement filed by the husband where he denied the claims of the wife and also disputed his liability to pay alimony and the litigation expenses. On Ext.P1 application, the Family Court passed Ext.P3 order and directed payment at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per month to the child and declined the claim of the wife for alimony and litigation expenses. That order was challenged by both sides in O.P.(FC) Nos.2872 and No.3094 of 2012. By Ext.P5 judgment a Division Bench of this Court disposed of the petitions as follows:-

"3. We therefore, set side the impugned order and remand I.A. No.1798/2012 to the Family Court, Thrissur. The Family Court is directed to take a fresh decision in the I.A. addressing all relevant issues such as:-

1) The liability of the father to pay pendente lite maintenance in O.P.No.818/2011 in view of section 36 of the Divorce Act.

2) The liability of the husband to pay maintenance to the wife and what if any should be the quantum of interim maintenance payable by the husband as pendente lite alimony of the wife.

3) The eligibility of the wife to litigation expenses, if any, and if so the amount."

4. Accordingly, the matter was reconsidered andbExt.P6 order was passed by the Family Court. In this order, the Family Court held that the child was not entitled for alimony pendente lite in a petition filed under section 36 of the Act. Proceeding further the Family Court upheld the entitlement of the wife for alimony and directed the husband to pay Rs.5,000/- per month from the date of service of notice on him. He was also ordered to pay Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses.

5. Challenging Ext.P6 order, the wife has filed O.P. (FC) No.1699/2013 for enhancement of the alimony awarded to her and also for payment for the maintenance to the child. The husband has filed O.P. No.1675/2013 seeking to challenge Ext.P6 order granting alimony and litigation expenses.

6. We heard the counsel for both sides. According to the counsel for the wife, although the language of section 36 of the Act provides for payment of alimony to the wife, that does not mean that her claim cannot include amount for the maintenance of the child also. Therefore, according to him, the Family Court erred in denying payment of the amount claimed by the wife for the maintenance of the minor child, who admittedly is in her custody and care. However, counsel for the husband sought to sustain the order of the Family Court denying the benefit to the child and, according to him, payment for the maintenance of the child is not contemplated within the scope of section 36 of the Act. He also brought to our notice the provisions of other enactments such as Special Marriage Act, 1954, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Parsi Marriage and Divor