Alimony with injunction can be granted.

The Order of the Court was as follows :

Both these Revisions are filed by the husband in H.M.O.P. No. 43 of 1999, on the file of Family Court at Madurai.

2. Petitioner herein filed H.M.O.P. No. 43 of 1999, seeking divorce of the first respondent herein on various grounds. Pending application, first respondent herein filed I.A. Nos. 74 and 75 of 1999. In IA No. 74 of 1999, first respondent herein wanted to restrain the husband, petitioner herein, from redeeming a property scheduled in that petition by discharging an 'othi', executed in favour of second respondent in that I.A.

3. In support of that I.A., first respondent has filed an affidavit stating that the petitioner herein is working as a driver in a Government undertaking and is getting a monthly income of not less than Rupees 5,000/-. She has further said that in 1997 they fixed a house on 'othi' which belonged to the second respondent in that application. The 'othi' amount was Rs. 34,000/-. Since the husband was not in possession of sufficient funds, the ornaments belonging to the wife were sold for raising funds, and thus obtained 'othi' of the house, where they are residing together. In fact, the sum and substance of her contention is that the mortgage right belongs to the wife also. She has further averred in the affidavit that after getting the mortgage right, both the husband and wife began to live in that house. A few months later, the husband did not take care of the family and started living with another woman. Since the morgage right belongs to the first respondent herein (wife) also, to defeat the same, the husband is now trying to surrender her mortgage right also and get the mortgage amount by himself. Therefore, first respondent/wife moved I.A. 74 of 1999 with a prayer that the husband should not be allowed to redeem the 'othi' and get the amount from the mortgagor. In the other application, viz., I.A. No. 75 of 1999, she claimed interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per mensem, Rs. 10,000/- towards educational expenses and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

4. Copies of these applications were served on the husband, and conciliation proceedings were also taken. But, later, the husband filed a memo stating that he is not pressing the divorce petition. A memo was filed on 13-5-1999. But the lower Court passed orders on the interlocutory applications by awarding interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- from the date of the petition and also passed an order of injunction restraining the petitioner herein from surrendering the property and receiving the amount from the mortgagor. Those Orders are challenged in these Revision Petitions.

5. Since the first respondent/wife has entered appearance through Counsel, with consent of parties, both the Revisions were heard for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

6. The main argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner was that the lower Court cannot pass an interim order when in the main petition, the husband has made an endorsement that he is not pressing the same. Once the main petition itself is dismissed as not pressed, the lower Court has no jurisdiction to pass any interim order. It was further submitted by learned Counsel that regarding redemption of mortgage, the same is governed by Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act and Order 34, CPC also provides for the same. The wife cannot file an application to prevent the mortgagee from surrendering the property, nor can the mortgagor be prevented from redeeming the mortgage.

7. Learned Counsel for first respondent submitted that the lower Court has taken into consideration the interests of justice, and powers under Section 115, CPC may not be invoked to interfere with such orders.

8. Heard learned Counsel on both sides.

9. I will first consider C.R.P. No. 3690 of 1999, which is a Revision filed against the order passed in I.A. No. 75 of 1999 seeking interim maintenance.

10. The main argument of the Counsel for petitioner is tha