MOTILAL B. NAIK, J.

( 1 ) RESPONDENTS filedasuitagainst the petitioner informa pauperis in o. P. No. 184 of 1993 on the file of the I additional Sub-Judge, Visakhapatnam. The said suit was instituted under Order 7 Rule 1 of CPC and under Order 33, Rule 1 of CPC seeking to recover the past and the future maintenance and such other relief, against the petitioner. First respondent is the wife and the second respondent is the minor son of the petitioner. The suit was filed under the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and maintenance Act, 1956 (for short "the act" ).

( 2 ) THE respondents also filed an application in I. A. No. 125 of 1994 under section 151 of CPC seeking interim direction for payment of Rs. 1,500/- per month as maintenance to the respondents (Rs. 1,000/- to the first respondent and Rs. 500/- to the second respondent) and also Rs. 750/- towards monthly house rent and a further sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards legal expenses. In the said petition filed by the respondents, it was categorically averred that eversince the year 1991, the petitioner being the husband of the first respondent has neglected to maintain her and her son as a result of which they were forced to depend upon the father of the first respondent who is a small employee. It was further averred that the petitioner is an employee in Visakhapatnam steel Plant and is getting a salary of more than Rs. 4,000/-

( 3 ) THE said application was resisted by the petitioner herein on the ground that the said application was ill-conceived inasmuch as when a suit is filed under the Hindu adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 for maintenance, there is no provision in the said act for granting interim maintenance and as such the lower court ought not to have entertained the said application filed under section 151 of CPC.

( 4 ) THE Lower Court, however, rejected the contention of the petitioner and directed him to pay a sum of Rs. 500/- to the first respondent and Rs. 300/- to the second respondent per month from the date of filing of the application and also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- towards legal expenses by an order dated 3 -2-1995. This is the order which is challenged in this revision.

( 5 ) THE main contention raised by Sri ajay Kumar, counsel for the petitioner is that when a suit is filed for recovery of past and future maintenance under the Act, in the absence of any provision contemplated under the said Act for granting interim maintenance, the Lower Court ought to have rejected the application filed under Section 151 ofcpc. In support of his contention, he relied on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in gorivelliappanna v. Gorivelli Seethamma (1) AIR 1972 AP 62. Counsel states, in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court and in view of the provisions of the Act, when there is no provision to grant interim maintenance, an application under section 151 of CPC seeking interim maintenance ought not to have been entertained by the Lower Court.

( 6 ) ON the contrary, Sri D. Ramalinga swamy, counsel forthe respondents contends that even if there is no provision made in the act, the inherent powers vested in the Civil courts under Section 151 of CPC could be invoked by a party seeking appropriate relief in a given set of circumstances. Counsel states, the purport of a provision is to be interpreted in such away to assist the needy in crisis and therefore, urges this Court to reject the contention of the petitioner. He relied on a decision of the Supreme court in Savitri v. Shri Govind Singh rawat (2) APLJ 1985 (3) DNC 22 and also another decision of a learned Single judge of this Court in V. Satyanarayana v. V. Venkataratnam (3) 1987 (2) HC APLJ 236. Counsel states that in the decision cited (2) supra, proceedings under Section 125 of crpc fell for interpretation before the supreme Court on the question of interim maintenance pending main application filed under Section 125 of CRPC. The Supreme court interpreted the provision to say e

Click Here to Read the rest of this document