The court has the power to grant interim maintenance and expenses of litigation under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, even if the jurisdiction of the court has been challenged.

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

( 2 ) THE facts leading to the reference are that the petitioner-husband 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 F. 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 not domiciled in the territory of India. On that submission it was contended in the said appeal that the courts 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 instant 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 that the question involved was of considerable importance and likely of common occurrence, REFERRED TO 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 sought 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 contested by the respondent by taking a preliminary objection to the effect that the Delhi Courts hau 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 not clothe the Court with the necessary jurisdiction when the parties had their permanent residence at Azizullabpur, 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 regarding the jurisdication before any orders regarding grant of pendente lite maintenance and expenses for the court proceedings were passed.

( 7 ) IN support of this contention the petitioner relied upon the observations made by M. R. A. Ansari J. in F. A. O. No. 12 of 1972 (Ravinder Pal Singh Narang Vs. Mrs. S. Ladi 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 Singh s case one of the parties was alleged to be a domicile of Singapore to which place the Act did not apply which was not the position in the instant