Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

1. An interesting question has been raised in the instant appeal. The case originated from an application submitted by the minor son said to have been born from the alleged wedlock between Neha Nankani and late Sri Arjun Nankani. According to the application, as submitted under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”) on 27th October, 2007, the minor children of late Arjun Nankani, namely, Master Dharmesh Nankani, who was represented through his natural mother and guardian Neha Nankani, had claimed the benefit of maintenance under Section 18 of the Act.

Before venturing into the intricacies of the issues involved in the case, an interpretation of Section 18 (1) and

(2) is necessary Section 18 of the Act reads as under :-

“Section 18 -Maintenance of wife

(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a Hindu wife, whether married before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be entitled to be maintained by her husband during her life time.

(2) A Hindu wife shall be entitled to live separately from her husband without forfeiting her claim to maintenance-

(a) if he is guilty of desertion, that is to