1. - In the miscellaneous appeal, an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act has been filed by respondent wife Smt. Geeta @ Sharda. In the application, it is stated that applicant is not having any independent source of income and she is not only required to maintain herself but she is also maintaining two sons namely, Manoj and Lalit who are studying in Engineering College, therefore, the applicant and her children are entitled for maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is contended that for the aforesaid expenditure near-about Rs. 15,000/- per month is required. As per the applicant, appellant husband Surendra Singh, who is Teacher working in Government school, is receiving approximately Rs. 25,000/- salary, therefore, during trial the learned trial Court allowed maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- per month. In these facts and circumstances, therefore, during the pendency of this appeal also, the applicant and both her sons are entitled for maintenance. Therefore, it is prayed that Rs. 15,000/- may be ordered to be paid to the applicant under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act by the appellant during the pendency of this appeal for maintenance of herself and her two sons.

2. Per contra, by way of filing reply to the application, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that wrong statement has been made by the applicant that the trial Court has passed order for interim maintenance as Rs. 8,000/- per month during the pendency of the case. In fact, only Rs. 6,000/- per month was granted and, that too, for applicant and her two sons and, at that time, both sons were minor and, at present, they are major; and, for the said purpose, along with reply two documents viz., Annex.-A and Annex.-B have been placed on record. Annex.-A is transfer certificate of Lalit Chauhan whose date of birth has been shown as 19.6.1991 and date of date of birth of Manoj Chauhan, elder son of applicant and appellant has been shown as 25.01.1990, therefore, it is submitted that no maintenance can be allowed to the major sons. Further, it is submitted that respondent is also earning Rs. 3,000/- because she is working as teacher in a private school. Therefore, there is no question of passing any order upon the application.

3. It is true that as per documentary evidence, both the sons are major, but, undeniably they are dependents upon the applicant mother while pursuing higher education in the Engineering Colleges, therefore, this application has been filed by the mother against the father of both the sons with prayer that father is working in the Education Department for last more than 20 years and getting salary of more than Rs. 25,000/- because, as per rules, he has already been allowed selection scales after completion of 9 and 18 years of service, therefore, it is duty of the father to maintain the family as a whole.

4. Appellant Surendra Singh (husband) is not disputing that he is substantively working in the Education Department but, for denial of maintenance, it is stated in the reply that he is not liable to pay maintenance of major sons and applicant is also not entitled to any maintenance because she is working as teacher in a private school and getting Rs. 3,000/- per month. In my opinion, in common parlance, father is custodian of children-whether minor or major while the children are receiving continued education and, in the midst of their education, they happen to become major, their right to education cannot be snatched away and father, when he is Government servant and receiving handsome salary, is under social and moral obligation to provide maintenance till they complete their education, at least, graduation. Here, in this case, obviously respondent wife has made best efforts for the education of their children and successfully got her both sons admitted in the Engineering College. In the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, in my opinion, she is entitled to get maintenance not o