( 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 interi