Sohan Lal Vs. Smt. Premlata and ors. - Court Judgment
|Court||Rajasthan High Court|
|Case Number||S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 186 of 1976|
|Judge|| A.P. Sen, J.|
|Respondent||Smt. Premlata and ors.|
|Cases Referred||Bankim Chandra Roy v. Smt. Anjali Roy|
.....marriage act, 1955 section 24 - maintenance allowance--determination of m.a. to wife in view of children in her custody does not grant amount to m.a. to children. - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act,..........on question of admission, in the present case the learned district judge has fixed rs. 60/- as interim maintenance payable by the appellant who is the husband, to the respondent his wife under section 24 of the hindu marriage act, 1955. the order is assailed on the ground that the learned district judge had no jurisdiction to award any maintenance to the children under section 24 of the act. in support of the contention, reliance is placed en bankim chandra roy v. smt. anjali roy : air1972pat80 .2. there can be no doubt that under section 24 of the act, the court cannot award any maintenance to the children as laid down in bankimchandra roy roy smt. anjali roy (supra). the section is clear and explicit and admits of no other construction.3. the learned district judge has not awarded.....
A.P. Sen, J.
1. Heard on question of admission, In the present case the learned District Judge has fixed Rs. 60/- as interim maintenance payable by the appellant who is the husband, to the respondent his wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The order is assailed on the ground that the learned District judge had no jurisdiction to award any maintenance to the children under Section 24 of the Act. In support of the contention, reliance is placed en Bankim Chandra Roy v. Smt. Anjali Roy : AIR1972Pat80 .
2. There can be no doubt that under Section 24 of the Act, the Court cannot award any maintenance to the children as laid down in Bankimchandra Roy Roy Smt. Anjali Roy (supra). The section is clear and explicit and admits of no other construction.
3. The learned District Judge has not awarded any interim maintenance to the children but what be has done is only to fix the amount of interim maintenance payable to the wife keeping in view that she has to maintain the children as she has the custody of them. I do not see any reason to interfere with that order.
4. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed summarily.