A court has the power under Section 151 CPC to grant interim maintenance pending a suit, even in cases where the right to maintenance is contested, if the court is of the opinion that the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case.

ALLADI KUPPUSWAMI, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition is filed by defendants 1 and 2 in O. S. 1/76 sub-Court, Gudivada, against an order made in I. A. 156/75 granting interim maintenance to the plaintiff-first respondent herein at the rate of Rs, 400/-p. m. from the date of the petition till the suit is disposed of and permitting her to withdraw the amount from the deposits made by the petitioners herein in the suit.

( 2 ) THE first respondent herein filed a suit informa pauperis which was later numbered as O,s. 1/76, Sub-Court, Gudivada, for recovery of possession of certain properties which belonged to her husband, late Venkata reddy. The case of the petitioner is that late Venkata Reddy died possessed of Ac. 3. 42 cents of dry land; Ac. 12. 85 cents of wet land and a building and some moveable properties and she is entitled to them as his widow and sole-heir. Defendants 1 and 2 who are Venkatareddi s Sister s sons claimed the properties under a will excuted by him whereby he bequeathed all the properties in their favour. The plaintiff filed a petition for the appointment of a Receiver, I. A. 805/74. The Court below held that no case was made out for appointing a receiver but directed the petitioners herein to deposit Rs. 8,000/- per year. On appeal, to this court this court directed the petitioners to deposit Rs. 12,000/- per year and accordingly the petitioners herein are depositing the said amount in the lower court. The plaintiff stated that she was an old lady of 60 years requiring the assistance of a cook or servant and she required amounts also for treatment of her illness as well as for maintenance. She therefore prayed that she may be paid Rs. 70/-p. m. out of the deposits made by the petitioners by way of interim maintenance.

( 3 ) THE petitioners herein opposed the petition contending that the claim of the petitioner was grossly exagerated. It was further contended that the plaintiff had obtained a decree for maintenance in O. S. 1/67 when venkata Reddy was alive. Her proper remedy was to excute that decree against the estate of Venkata Reddy and that she was not entitled to ask for payment from out of the deposits for her interim maintenance. Finally, it has contended that the application under Sec. 151 CPC. for payment of interim maintenance pending the suit was not maintainable.

( 4 ) THE court below held that the petition was maintainable and the earlier decree for maintenance obtained during the husband s life-time was not a bar for filing this application. It held that having regard to the circumstances of the case the grant of interim maintenance at Rs, 400/-p m. would be just and proper. In the result, it directed that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw Rs. 400/-p. m. from the date of the petition as interim maintenance from out of the amounts deposited by the petitioners herein into court.

( 5 ) THE petitioners have filed this revision petition challenging the said order as being made without jurisdiction.

( 6 ) AS far as the quantum of maintenance is concerned, it is not permissible for the petitioners to question the correctness of the amount in a revision petition under Sec. 115 CPC. I am also of the view that there is no substance in the contention that as the first respondent had obtained a decree against her husband during his life time for maintanance, her only remedy is to execute the decree against the estate of the husband and that she is not entitled to ask for interim maintenance in this suit on that ground the decree for maintenance obtained by her was in her capacity as a wife who had just cause for residing separately from her husband. The fact that she obtained a decree for maintenance at that time has absoultely no relevance in considering the question whether the petitioner is entitled to ask for interim maintenance pending a suit for recovery of possession of her husband s properties after his death on the ground that the she is entitled to them as his heir. Vide Mulla Hindu Law 13

Click Here to Read the rest of this document