A father with sufficient means has a statutory, moral, and social obligation to maintain his minor children, and the purpose of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is to prevent children from being left in distress and destitution.

JUDGMENT

1. The present miscellaneous appeal is filed for assailing the order dated 25.07.2022, passed by the learned Family Court, Hanumangarh (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Family Court') in Civil Case No. 27/2021: Gaganbala & Anr. v. Narendra Singh, whereby application filed by respondent No. 1, under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1955') has been allowed and appellant was directed to pay maintenance pendente lite to the tune of Rs. 4,000/- per month to respondent No. 1 and Rs. 4,000/- per month to respondent No. 2, appellant's wife and daughter respectively.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Family Court had passed the impugned order dated 25.07.2022, in a perfunctory manner, without appreciating the fact that the respondent No. 1 is working as teacher in a Government school and earning more than Rs. 50,000/- per month. Counsel further submitted that Section 24 of the Act of 1955 provides that maintenance is to be allowed, either to wife or husband, as the case may be, not having independent income sufficient to support himself/herself. Learned counsel further submitted that the Family Court failed to consider that respondent No. 1 is having independent income sufficient to maintain herself as well as minor daughter. It was thus prayed that the order date 25.07.2022, passed by the Family Court deserves to be quashed and set aside.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the appellant is working on the post of Officer Scale-I in Punjab National Bank, Branch-Panchkula, Haryana with a monthly income of around Rs. 70,000, therefore order dated 25.07.2022 passed by Family Court deserves to be maintained. Learned counsel however, was not in a position to refute the fact that respondent is working as teacher in a Government School.

4. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

5. In the case of Neeta Rakesh Jain v. Rakesh Jeetmal Jain reported in AIR (SCW) 4417, Hon'ble the Supreme Court observed:

"8. Section 24 thus provides that in any proceeding under the Act, the spouse who has no independent income sufficient for her or his support may apply to the court to direct the respondent to pay the monthly maintenance as the court may think reasonable, regard being had to the petitioner's own income and the income of the respondent. The very language in which Section is couched indicates that wide discretion has been conferred on the court in the matter of an order for interim maintenance. Although the discretion conferred on the court is wide, the Section provides guideline inasmuch as while fixing the interim maintenance the court has to give due regard to the income of the respondent and the petitioner's own income. In other words, in the matter of making an order for interim maintenance, the discretion of the court must be guided by the criterion provided in the Section, namely, the means of the parties and also after taking into account incidental and other relevant factors like social status; the background from which both the parties come from and the economical dependence of the petitioner. Since an order for interim maintenance by its very nature is temporary, a detailed and elaborate exercise by the court may not be necessary, but, at the same time, the court has got to take all the relevant factors into account and arrive at a proper amount having regard to the factors which are mentioned in the statute."

6. Undisputably, the appellant is working on the post of Officer Scale-I in Punjab National Bank, Branch-Panchkula, Haryana and earning a salary of about Rs. 70,000/-, therefore, it is his duty to maintain the minor daughter and provide her the best of education while upbringing her in a lifestyle, she deserves. The appellant who is the father of respondent No. 2 having sufficient source of income cannot shy away from the responsibility of maintainin