A court has inherent powers to grant interim maintenance to a minor son, even when his very status as such has been challenged, in order to prevent the frustration of the suit.

P.D. Kudal, J.-This is a revision petition under Section 115, CPC against the order of the learned Munsiff , Jalore dated June 1, 1974.

2. Thefacts, which are relevant for the disposal of this revision petition, are that on December 11, 1973 the plaintiff Babu Lal minor filed a suit through his next friend and guardian Paras Mal against his adoptive father Indar Mal for grant of maintenance allowance. Defendant Indar Mal filed his written statement on February 6, 1974 alleging therein that the plaintiff was never adopted by him. On February 28, 1974 the plaintiff filed a rejoinder to the written statement. The learned Munsiff struck the issues on March 5, 1974. The plaintiff moved an application on February 28, 1974 for grant of interim maintenance. This application was resisted by the defendant. The learned trial Court on June 1, 1974 while deciding the aforesaid application held that the plaintiff is entitled to an interim maintenance of Rs. 100/-p. m. from the date of the institution of the suit, i. e. December 11, 1973 to July 15, 1974 when the plaintiff became major. It is against this order of grant of interim maintenance that the defendant-applicant has filed the present revision petition.

3. It was contended on behalf of the defendant-applicant that the grant of interim maintenance, in the facts and circumstances of the case, has virtually resulted in giving the entire relief to the plaintiff which he would have been found to be entitled at the time of the final decision of the suit, and as such the learned trial Court acted illegally and with material irregularity in granting such a relief It was further contended that where the status of the plaintiff-respondent as an adopted son was contested by the applicant, the grant of interim maintenance was an act without jurisdiction. It was also contended that the grant of interim maintenance was not ‘an act in aid of the suit’, and as such, the learned trial Court lacked inherent jurisdiction to grant this relief as a measure of interim relief

4. On behalf of the plaintiff-respondent, it was contended that the learned trial Court did not act illegally or with material irregularity in invoking its power for grant of interim maintenance by way of relief when the circumstances of the case so warranted. It was also contended that the defendant-applicant has executed a registered adoption deed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and that the execution of that deed has not been denied but it has only been contended that the deed was got executed by way of fraud, coercion or pressure. It was also contended that a Court has always inherent powers to grant such reliefs which enhance the ends of justice unless the grant of such interim reliefs is specifically prohibited by an express provision of law.

5. Thelearned Counsel for the defendant-applicant places reliance on Gopal Saran vs. Sita Devi, AIR 1924 Pat 69, Ab-dul Rahman vs. Tajurinissa Begum, AIR 1953 Mad 420; M.S. Basavarajappa V-Basavannappa, AIR 1959 Mys 152; Venkataratnam vs. Kamala, AIR 1960 Orissa 157 and G. Appanna vs. G. Seethamma, AIR 1972 Andh Pra 62.

6. Thelearned Counsel for the plaintiff-respondent places reliance on Jain vs. Jain. AIR 1968 Cal 405; Tarini Gupta vs. Gauri Gupta, AIR 1968 Cal 567; Ruxmani-ben vs. Narmada, AIR 1962 Gui 227; Muniammal vs. Ranganatha Nayagar, AIR 1955 Mad 571; D. Udayar vs. Rajarani Animal, AIR 1973 Mad 369 and Surendra Kumar vs. Kamlesh, AIR 1974 All 110.

7. The respective contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties have been considered and the record of the case carefully perused.

8. Thelearned Counsel for the defendant-applicant basically places reliance on Abdul Rahman vs. Tajunnissa Begum, (AIR 1953 Mad 420) wherein it has been held as under:-“The Civil Procedure Code confers certain powers on the Court to grant relief in interim proceedings such as for example, power to issue injunctions, attachments before judgments or appointment of receivers. Where such a rel