HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
A. N. RAY, S. K. MUKHERJEE
NEMAI CHAND JAIN - Appellant
Versus
LILA JAIN - Respondent
A. F. O. O. 241 Of 1966
Decided On : JULY 18, 1967
INTERIM MAINTENANCE - JURISDICTION - SECTION 151 CPC - PRIMA FACIE CASE - DENIAL OF STATUS - EVIDENCE - LETTERS - PHOTOGRAPHS - INJUNCTION - SECTION 151 CPC - SUMMARY
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for arrears of maintenance, future maintenance, and a declaration that the maintenance awarded would form a charge on the defendant's properties. The defendant denied the marriage and contested the plaintiff's right to claim maintenance.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case of marriage with the defendant based on affidavit evidence, documentary evidence, photographs, and letters written by the defendant addressing the plaintiff as his wife. The court found that the defendant's mere denial of status, unsupported by any evidence, was insufficient to defeat the plaintiff's claim for interim maintenance.
Issues: 1. Whether the court has jurisdiction to grant interim maintenance in a suit where the status and right of the claimant are hotly contested? 2. Whether the plaintiff has established a prima facie case of marriage with the defendant?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court has jurisdiction to grant interim maintenance in a suit where the status and right of the claimant are hotly contested, provided that the claimant has established a prima facie case. 2. A prima facie case is one that calls for an answer. In the present case, the plaintiff's affidavit evidence, documentary evidence, photographs, and letters written by the defendant addressing the plaintiff as his wife constitute a prima facie case of marriage.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the lower court granting interim maintenance to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 250 per month. The court also granted an injunction restraining the plaintiff from transferring, encumbering, or disposing of her property.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is from an order of Sen J. dated 16th September, 1966 by which it was ordered that the plaintiff would be entitled to interim maintenance of Rs. 350 per month from the defendant.
( 2 ) UPON appeal being preferred from that order, the appellate court by an order dated 16th January, 1967 directed that a sum of Rs. 250 per month instead of Rs. 350 per month would he paid. That order was made on an interlocutory application during the pendency of the appeal.
( 3 ) THE plaintiff instituted the suit against the defendant for arrears of maintenance as also maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1500 per month and declaration that the maintenance to be awarded would form a charge on the properties of the defendant and for other reliefs.
( 4 ) COUNSEL for the respondent contended that the Court had no jurisdiction to grant interim maintenance. In aid of that proposition reliance was placed on the Bench Decision in Md. Abdul Rahman v. Tajunnissa Begum, reported in and the decision in Mulimani Sanna Basavarajappa v. Basavannappa, reported in AIR 1959 Mys 152. In the Madras Bench Decision the appellant was directed to pay to the respondent a sum of Rs 500 by way of intering maintenance pending disposal of the suit. The respondent alleged that the appellant had married her. The plaintiff filed an application for an award of interim maintenance during the pendency of the suit. The defendant denied that he married the plaintiff. It is said in the Madras Bench decision that to grant any relief in an interim application would be to grant the relief which can properly be granted by the ultimate determination of the suit and the decree following thereon. It is also said that the Civil Procedure Code confers certain powers on the Court to grant relief in interim proceedings as for example, injunctions, attachment before judgments or appointment of receivers. No power was conferred on the Court to grant interim relief by way of maintenance The Madras Bench decision further held that if the claim of the plaintiff was hotly contested in the suit it would be without jurisdiction to grant any interim relief by way of interim maintenance.
( 5 ) IN Mulimani's case AIR 1959 Mys 152 in a suit for paitition, the minor plaintiff claimed to be a son of the defendant and the defendant denied that the plaintiff was his son and contested his right to claim partition. It was said that the Court could not grant under Section 151 of the Code any interim relief by awarding interim maintenance.
( 6 ) COUNSEL for the plaintiff-respondent on the other hand relied on a later Madras decision in Muniammal v. P. M. Ranganatha Nayagar reported in The Madras Bench decision in was considered and the learned Judge held that the ratio decidendi of the Madras Bench decision in is that interim maintenance could not be granted in a suit where the status and the right of the claimant was hotly contested supported by a volume of prima facie evidence documentary and circumstantial. It is also said in Muniammal's case, that it was not meant that whenever the contesting defendant made a denial of the claim of the plaintiff interim relief would he denied.
( 7 ) THE plaintiff in the present case instituted a suit for arrears of maintenance and future maintenance. The plaintiff has given affidavit evidence of her marriage. The plaintiff has giver documentary evidence. That documentary evidence consists of photographs of the plaintiff and the defendant being photographed together. These photographs show the intimacy that the plaintiff claims with the defendant. The plaintiff has also produced documentary evidence in the shape of letters written by the defendant to the plaintiff. One of these letters at page 62 of the paper book shows the defendant to be writing to the plaintiff-". . . . . . . . . I want that you be a good housewife, what is your duty to your husband what is now our age, what is the financial position of your husband, whether he is happy or sad if
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.