Parents have a legal and pious duty to share the expenses of maintaining their children, and the court has the power to pass interim orders for the maintenance and education of minor children under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

S.K. Keshote, J.-This appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short, the Act, 1984) is directed by the appellant husband against the order, dated 15.05.1999, of the learned Family Court, Ajmer, in Case No. 125/98, under the impugned order the learned Family Court, Ajmer directed the appellant husband to pay Rs. 2,000/-per month as interim maintenance for minor children, namely, Gagan and Sameer, for their maintenance, education etc. This amount of interim maintenance has been ordered to be paid by the appellant husband of has share as the respondent wife, it is not in dispute, is also in employment.

2. Twofold contentions have been raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant husband challenging the impugned order of the learned Family Court, Ajmer. First contention is that the learned Family Court, Ajmer has committed a serious error of jurisdiction to order against the appellant husband to pay the maintenance for his minor children name above, under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, the Act, 1955). Section 24 of the Act, 1955, the learned Counsel for the appellant husband submitted, nowhere empowers the Court to direct the husband to pay the maintenance of the minor children. The second contention raised that the respondent wife is in Government service, Professor (Obest. & Gyn.) in the JLN Medical College, Ajmer and drawing more than Rs. 25,000/-per month as salary, thus the learned Family Court, Ajmer has committed an error to fasten the liability of maintenance upon the appellant husband, of the minor children.

3.The learned Counsel for the respondent wife, on the other hand, supported the impugned order of the learned Family Court, Ajmer.

4. We have given our anxious and thoughtful consideration to the rival contention made by the learned Counsel for the parties.

5. The appellant husband does not dispute his marriage with the respondent wife; he has also not disputed that out of this wedlock they have been blessed with two sons; the matrimonial dispute i.e., a petition under Section 13 of the Act, 1955 is pending in the Family Court, Ajmer. The petition under Section 13 of the Act, 1955 has been filed by the appellant husband for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent wife by a decree of divorce. In that petition the respondent wife filed an application for grant of interim maintenance for the minor sons. The respondent wife has not disputed the fact that she is in Government service, Professor (Obest. & Gyn.)

6. It is no more res integra that where both, the husband and wife, are in gainful employment, proportionately they have to share the expenses of maintenance being incurred on their children. Only on the ground that the wife is in service and earning handsome amount, the appellant is not relieved of his legal and pious duty and responsibility to maintain his children. Proportionately he has to share and contribute the expenses towards their maintenance and that what precisely has been done under the impugned order by the learned Family Court, Ajmer.

7. Looking to the salary of the appellant husband, the amount of Rs. 2,000/-of interim maintenance ordered by the learned Family Court, Ajmer, to be paid by him to the children, is not towards the higher side.

8. The application is titled by the respondent wife under Section 24 of the Act, 1955 for the interim maintenance of the children. The learned Counsel for the appellant husband may be correct that under Section 24 of the Act, 1955 the learned Family Court has not been conferred with the power to order for payment of interim maintenance to the children by the husband appellant, but appears to be a mistake made, a wrong provision is mentioned. It no more res integra that merely on mentioning a wrong provision on the application, the Court ordinarily not to deny the relief to the litigant where it is satisfied that the relief as prayed for by that litigant therein is grantable by it under any other provisi