Whether a claim for maintenance could be made for a child in an application under Section 24 was directly confronted by the Supreme Court in Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. The District Judge, Dehradun, 1997(7) SCC 484. The Court was holding that “Section 24 of the Act no doubt talks of maintenance of wife during the pendency of the proceedings but this Section, in our view, cannot be read in isolation and cannot be given restricted meaning to hold that it is maintenance of the wife alone and no one else. Since wife is maintaining the eldest unmarried daughter, her right to claim maintenance would include her own maintenance and that of her daughter. This fact has to be kept in view while fixing maintenance pendente lite for the wife. We are aware of the provisions of Section 26 of the Act providing for custody of minor children, their maintenance and education but that Section operates in its own field.”
In Amarjit Kaur v. Harbhajan Singh, 2003(10) SCC 228 the lower Court had granted maintenance to a child under Section 24 proceedings on condition of a DNA test to be conducted and to secure proof of the legitimacy of the child before maintenance could be granted. The Supreme Court was holding that it could not impose such a condition for grant of maintenance under Section 24. In Anu Kaul v. Rajeev Kaul, 2009(13) SCC 209, the Court assessed a maintenance granted to the wife in the light of the fact that the child was daughter of highly placed officer and the exorbitant fee structure in good schools and cost of living itself would be a justification for enhancing the grant of maintenance granted at Rs.2000/- to Rs.5000/- apart from the maintenance granted to the wife at Rs.10,000/-.
Several other Courts in India have taken a similar view and it will be sufficient if I merely make reference to the judgments of such Courts Yuvraj v. Kirubaarani Devi, AIR 2009 (Madras) 138; Smt. Sunita Tasera v. Lalit Kumar Jagrawal, AIR 2012 (Raj) 82; Padmavathi and others v. C. Lakshminarayana, 2003(3) RCR (Civil) 158; Rajendra Kumar v. Savitribai, 1992(1) DMC 567; Chinmoy Dutta v. Smt. Patralekha Dutta, 2012(1) Cal. L.T. 11; Praveen Menon v. Ajitha K. Pillai, 2001(3) ILR (Kerala) 362; Neelam Kalia v. Rajesh Kali, AIR 2013 (HP) 76; Mahendra Kumar v. Snehalata Kar, AIR 1983 (Orissa) 74 and above all a judgment of this Court itself in Hanish Kumar v. Deepika, 2015(4) RCR (Civil) 59.
It must be noticed that Section 24 which makes reference to maintenance of spouse does not spell out the maintenance claim of a child only because the reasonable wants of a spouse which is relevant for determination of maintenance amount ought to be taken to include the expenses that have to be incurred for a dependent child. It may not perhaps be possible for a child to file an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for the entire scheme of the Hindu Marriage Act does not contemplate any petition between a child and a parent. Even a petition under Section 26 relates to custody of a child which is in a proceeding between the spouses. If a petition were to be filed against a child for custody not as an interim application but as a main petition itself, it could be done only under the Guardianship and Wards Act. The Hindu Marriage Act being an enactment that deals with matrimonial issues between the spouse ought to therefore make possible a claim for maintenance of not merely of the spouses but also of children and further a maintenance for spouse at all times ought to be understood as including a claim to maintenance for the child as well, for after all a child is never a party or is not even considered to be a party to the proceedings proprio vigore.
