Obul Reddy, J.:— Mr. M. Jagannadha Rao learned counsel appearing for the appellant relying upon Akasam China Sabu v. Akasam Parbati (1) (A.I.R 1967 Orissa 163), contended that the lower court went wrong in granting Interim maintenance not only to the respondent but also to her son contrary to what is laid down in Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
2. It is also contended by him that the interim maintenance of Rs. 45/- awarded to the respondent and her son, as also the legal expenses of Rs. 100/- go far beyond ‘reasonable maintenance’ to be awarded on the facts of the case.
3. So far as the first point is concerned, it has to be noticed that while granting maintenance pendente lite to the wife or to the husband, as the case may be, regard should also be had to Section 26.
4. While Section 24 of the Act provides for granting maintenance to the wife or the husband, as the case may be, Section 26 speaks of passing interim orders and also making provision in the decree by the court with regard to custody, maintenance and education of the minor children consistently with their wishes. When the wife makes an application under Section 24 of the Act to the Court for the grant of interim maintenance to the children also, the court can grant the relief to the children also under Section 26 wherever it considers just and proper.
5. We are unable to agree with the view expressed by the Orissa High Court in (1) Supra that interim maintenance cannot be granted to a person other than the wife or husband, as the case may be, pendente lite. The attention of the learned Judges there, it does not appear, had been invited to Section 26, and therefore the decision rendered by them is not with reference to the provisions of both sections 24 and 26.
6. As regards the quantum, the court below has found on evidence that the appellant earns about Rs. 4-8-0 or Rs. 5/-, per day by his caste profession namely, priesthood. Therefore, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, the court below felt that the ends of justice would be met if an interim maintenance of Rs. 45/- per month to both the wife and her son, and Rs. 100/- towards legal expenses are awarded.
7. On the facts it is difficult to say that the house owned by the appellant is worth much, and that is not a ground for holding that he does not earn Rs. 4-8-0 or 5/- a day, and that his status as a village Priest is no better than a beggar's.
8. In the circumstances, we are unable to interfere with the order of the lower court. The appeal is dismissed. No costs.