The court has jurisdiction to grant interim maintenance to a wife under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 if there is a prima facie case.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is from the order dated 5th September 1967 passed by R. M. Datta. J.

( 2 ) THE order was passed on an interlocutory application filed by the plaintiff for interim maintenance. The plaintiff filed a suit and claimed Rs. 800/- per month for maintenance and residence and also claimed maintenance and educational expenses of the daughter.

( 3 ) THE learned Judge made an order directing the defendant-husband to pay Rs. 160/- per month to the wife by was of interim maintenance pending the decision of the suit and further directed that the sum was to be paid from the month of August, 1967 and thereafter month by month until trial and decision in the suit

( 4 ) COUNSEL for the appellant contended that the Court had no jurisdiction to order interim maintenance, In aid of that contention reliance was placed on the decision in Mahomed Abdul Rahman v. Taiunnissa Begum. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Padam Sen v. State of Uttar Pradesh,.

( 5 ) THE contentions on behalf of the appellant were that there was no express statutory provision under which interim maintenance could be granted.

( 6 ) THE decision of the Supreme Court in Padam Sen's case, was that the Court had no inherent power under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to appoint a Commissioner to seize account books in the possession of the plaintiff upon an application by the defendant that he had apprehension that they would be tampered with. The Supreme Court said that the powers saved by section 151 were not powers over substantive sights which a litigant possessed. A person had full right over his account books and the Court could not seize them forcibly. It could summon them. In the Supreme Court case. Gendamal sued Mithan Lal for money on the basis of promissory notes. The defendant apprehended that the plaintiff would fabricate the books of account in respect of payment and they applied for seizure It is obvious that the right to seize the books was not within the scope of the suit.

( 7 ) THE Bench decision of the Madras High Court in Abdul Rehman's case, was that the Civil Procedure Code conferred certain powers on the Court to grant certain reliefs in interim proceedings, as for example, power to issue injunction; an attachment before judgment or appointment of Receiver and that apart from such powers there was no inherent jurisdiction in regard to grant of interim relief which should be granted by the decree after determination of the points in controversy. On this reasoning it was said that where the claim was contested an order for payment of interim maintenance was without jurisdiction The Court might refuse to make an order for payment of interim maintenance in a disputed claim If a claim is denied that would not in my opinion take away the jurisdiction of the Court to make interim orders in a suit for maintenance. The jurisdiction of the Court does not depend on the denial of a case by the defendant. It is one think to say that the Court declines to make an order in a case where facts are disputed and quite another thins to say that the Court has no jurisdiction to make an order because the claim is contested,

( 8 ) IN the recent unreported Bench decision in Nemi Chand Jain v. Sm Lila Jain dated 18 July, 1967 being Appeal From Original Order No. 241 of 1966. (since reported in AIR 196p Cal 405) this Madras decision was considered and the opinion was expressed that the jurisdiction of the Court was attracted by filing a suit and the Court had power to make interlocutory orders in aid of a suit and denial of status would not deprive the Court of its Jurisdiction to make proper order in the facts and circumstances of a case Counsel for the appellant did not contest the proposition that denial of a claim would not take away the jurisdiction of the Court

( 9 ) THE Code of Civil Procedure has made specific provisions with regard to grant of injunction, attachment before Judgment and appointment of Rec