N. M. Kasliwal, C. J.—On the request made by the learned Counsel for both the parties, arguments were heard on the merits of the main appeal.

2. Mrs. Rajni Abrol, wife of the respondent Shri Adarsh Abrol, has filed the present appeal under section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act), against the order of Additional District Judge (II) Simla dated July 2!, 1988. A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the respondent that no appeal is maintainable against the impugaed order, which was passed under section 24 of the Act. With regard to this objection, Mr. Sood, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that this appeal may be treated as revision, in case no appeal was maintainable. la view of the above circumstances, this appeal was permitted to be considered as revision and learned counsel for both the parties addressed their arguments treating it as a revision.

3. The short controversy raised in the present case is with regard to the grant of interim maintenance for the minor daughter who is at present in the custody of her mother. A petition for divorce had been filed by the husband on the ground of cruelty against the wife. Dur