Judgment:
M.F. Saldanha, J.
1. The learned Advocates inform me that pursuant to the negotiations between the parties and their learned Advocates that they have almost arrived at certain terms which are more or less in the final stages. If the matter is ultimately resolved, that would certainly be an excellent method of disposing of the entire proceedings. As far as the present civil revision petition is concerned, the scope is therefore very limited. Respondent's learned Advocate states that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- which was awarded by way of costs for the litigation has been paid by his client and that nothing survives under this head. The learned Trial Judge had awarded an amount of Rs. 1,500/- per month by way of interim maintenance to the petitioner and a sum of Rs. 1,000/- per month by way of interim maintenance for the son. Petitioner's learned Advocate submits that having regard to the record of this case, that both these amounts are hopelessly inadequate and that they should be considerably stepped up. Respondent's learned Advocate submits that one of the factors which the Court has to take into account is the aspect of the economic condition of the wife herself and he submits that where it is demonstrated that the petitioner has sufficient means of her own, that the Court will have to take this factor into account.
2. I find from the present record that at the interim stage, the petitioner has not indicated what her means are and neither has the respondent succeeded in demonstrating to the Court as to precisely what her economic condition is. In the absence of any concrete evidence there for, I cannot take cognizance of this factor. Even as far as the respondent's income is concerned, the few figures that have emerged are not very satisfactory for purposes of making an exact assessment. In a case where there is a maintenance claim, the burden of establishing what precisely the husband's income is would shift to the respondent because the petitioner-wife has indicated certain fact- which are to her knowledge and if these are incorrect, it is open to the respondent-husband to set the record right through more cogent evidence such as Income-tax returns or other material of his choice. In the absence of reliable material being made available, the Court is required to do an assessment on the basis of whatever is before the Court.
3. I have taken cognizance of the status of the parties, the requirements of the petitioner and the child who is at present minor and who is being looked after by the petitioner-wife. Respondent's learned Advocate states that his client has always indicated his willingness to look after the child and has never abdicated his responsibility. On the other hand, he has even offered to put the child in a good school and bear the expenses or ^ in the alternative, to make adequate financial provision for the education and welfare of the child. As indicated by me earlier, those aspects of the matter will be either settled by the parties or the Trial Court will pass appropriate orders if a settlement does not come possibly.
4. On the question of maintenance payable to the minor child, the respondent's learned Advocate has drawn my attention to an earlier decision of this Court in the case of Chandrakant v. Sharada Bai, 1977 (1) Kar. L.J. 92 Sh. N. 106 : ILR 1977 Kar. 852. This Court while dealing with an order for payment of interim maintenance of Rs. 50/- to a minor child in a proceeding under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act held that since the section uses the word 'wife' and is silent with regard to any mention of children, that it is not open to a Court to award maintenance to a minor child. Respondent's learned Advocate relying on the decision, submitted that whereas it may be open to the Court to pass appropriate orders on an application for maintenance filed by a wife, that there is a bar as far as a minor child claiming maintenance is concerned. On the facts of the present case, learned Advocate demonstrated to me that the wife has asked for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month as interim maintenance and that no separate application has been made on behalf of the minor son nor has any claim been projected separately under this head.
5. With utmost respect to the view expressed in the aforesaid decision, it is necessary to point out that Sections 24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act undoubtedly do not make any mention of interim maintenance that may be claimed for a minor child. The reason f0r this is obvious because no such separate claim is tenable insofar as it would always have to be routed through the legal guardian who would invariably be the spouse having* custody of that child, cinder these circumstances, the application would always be made by the spouse who is the guardian of the minor child or children but while computing the heads, as has been done in the present case. it would certainly be justifiable for a spouse concerned to indicate as to what would be the quantum of maintenance required for the spouse independently and separately from the amount required for the minor child or children. While considering the award of maintenance, it is equally open to the Court, and in fact necessary, t6 carefully assess as to how much should be awarded under each of these heads. The distinction that has been made in the decision referred to supra, is purely and completely academic for the simple reason that ultimately, irrespective of the mode of calculation, the Court would have to arrive at the aggregate figure which would be payable to the; spouse who is claiming it, namely the legal guardian. In this background therefore, it would not be correct to interpret Sections 24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act as legal provisions which disqualify a claim for maintenance on the part of the minor children. It is a well-settled principle in all branches of matrimonial law that the concept of maintenance takes into consideration the needs of the spouse and the minor children which are both supplementary and complementary to each other and this to my mind would be the more correct way of interpreting the provision.
6. As far as the facts of the present case are concerned, having regard to the limited material that is before the Court and all other relevant considerations, to my mind, the petitioner-wife having regard to her own needs would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 5.000/- per month and having regard to the age of the child the maintenance and the educational needs at current rates, an equivalent figure of Rs. 5,000/- would appear reasonable as far as the child is concerned. Undoubtedly however, the order passed would have to be amalgamated insofar as the petitioner is the legal guardian and is responsible for the maintenance of the minor child as long as he remains within her custody and to this extent, therefore, the amount awarded would have to be paid to her.
7. The civil revision petition partially succeeds. The order passed by the Trial Court is varied insofar as the aggregate maintenance payable to the petitioner on her behalf and also on behalf of the minor child will be Rs. 10,000/- per month. This order will come into effect from the maintenance payable for the current month namely the month of September, 1996 onwards. I make it clear however, that if the parties have arrived at any independent terms, then this order would , only be of academic value.
8. The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.