The court has the power to grant interim maintenance and expenses of litigation under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before deciding the question of jurisdiction.

( 1 ) THIS petition was referred to a larger Bench by P. N. Khanna J.

( 2 ) THE facts leading to the reference are that the petitioner-bus- band filed an application under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, (hereinafter to be called the Act ) against the respondent-wife for judicial separation. The respondent filed an application under Section 24 of the Act claiming maintenance during the pendency of the proceedings and for expenses of litigation. The application of the respondent was contested by the petitioner on the basis of a judgment dated 21st April, 1972, passed by M. R. A. Ansari J. in P. A O- No. 12 of 1972. That was a case in which the inherent jurisdiction of Courts in India was challenged. The appellant in that case was said to be noi domiciled in the territory of India. On that submission it was contended in the said appeal that the coarts in India had no jurisdiction to entertain the application under the Act. In that context M. R. A. Ansari, J. observed that the plea of domicile should be decided first.

( 3 ) IN the inslant case, the Sub-Judge trying the petition distinguished the judgment of M. R. A. Ansari J. on the ground that there was no question of lack of inherent jurisdiction in the present case. P. N. Khanna J. considering the the question involved was of considerable importance and likely of common occurrence, referred the matter to my Lord the Chief Justice for constituting a -larger Bench. for an authoritative pronouncement. This is how the matter has come before us.

( 4 ) THE Petitioner in the present case filed a petition for judicial separation in the Court of Shri S. C. Jain, Sub-Judge 1st Class, Delhi under Section 10 of the Act seeking judicial separation. The Jurisdiction of the Court at Delhi was shought to be made out on the allegation of the parties having last resided within the jurisdiction of Delhi courts. The territorial jurisdiction of the Court was can ested by the - respondent by taking a preliminary objection to the effect that the Delhi Courts had no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the petition and that the petitioner was guilty of making false representation with respect to "last residing of the parties within the jurisdiction of the Delhi Court. It was further contended that a casual and a temporary visit to Delhi devoid of any intention to live or reside there could Icot clothe the Court with the necesary jurisdiction when the- parties and their permanent residence at Azizullahpur, Panipat, District Karnal

( 5 ) THE respondent also filed a petition under Section 24 of the Act praying that an order be made requiring the petitioner to pay the respondent expenses of the proceedings and such monthly sum during the proceedings as the Court may consider reasonable.

( 6 ) THE application filed by the respondent under Section 24 of the Act was contested by the petitioner amongst others on the ground that she having challenged the jurisdiction of the Court, it was imperative that the Court should first decide the question retarding the jurisdiction before any orders regarding grant of pandente lit maintenance and expensecs for the court proceedings were passed.

( 7 ) IN Support of this contention the petitioner relied upon the observations made by M. R Ansari J in Ravinder Pal Singh Narang v. Mrs. S. Jadi Narang) wherein it was observed that the point of jurisdiction must be decided first. The trial court after taking into consideration the observations in Ravinder Pal Singh s case (supra) came to the conclusion that the allegations made in that case were based on the lack of inherent jurisdiction of the Court in India while the plea of jurisdiction raised in the instant case was of territorial jurisdiction only. According to the trial court, in Ravinder Pal Siagh s case one of the parties was alleged to be a domicile of Singapor to which place the Act did not apply which was not the position in the instant case. The trial Court, therefore, came t