ORDER :- The husband who has been directed to pay interim maintenance to his wife is the petitioner herein. The wife filed O. S. No. 288 of 1970 in the Subordinate Judge's Court, Cuddalore under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 against her husband for separate residence and maintenance on the ground that she and the defendant were leading a happy married life till the beginning of 1969, that the defendant unlawfully contracted a second marriage on 18-6-1970, that she preferred a complaint under Section 494, Indian Penal Code in C. C. No. 290 of 1970 before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Villupuram and the respondent was convicted for the offence of bigamy and that ever since the husband has been adopting an unnatural attitude and is extremely antagonistic in his behaviour towards her and that it is practically impossible for her to live with her husband any longer. On these allegations, the wife claimed maintenance at Rs. 1000/- a month. She also filed I. A. No. 331 of 1971 for interim maintenance at the same rate. The husband in his counter contested the claim of the wife for separate residence and maintenance and he also contended that she is not entitled to interim maintenance and that in any event, the claim of Rs. 1000/- made against him is arbitrary, and excessive. The learned subordinate Judge allowed the application of the wife and directed the defendant to pay interim maintenance at Rs. 250/- per month. Against this order the present revision petition is filed by the husband.

2. Sri R. S. Venkatachari, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no interim maintenance could be ordered in a suit for maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. In support of his contention he relied upon the recent judgment of a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in Garivelli Appanna v. Gorivalli Seethamma, AIR 1972 Andh Pra 62. Chinnappa Reddi, J., who delivered the judgment on behalf of the Bench in the said case held that inherent powers of Court recognised by Section 151, C. P. C., cannot extend to substantive rights of the parties and that in an interlocutary application upon matters awaiting adjudication in the suit no interim provision could be made. In the result the learned Judge held that where the suit is for maintenance under Section 18 of the Act, no order of interim maintenance could be made. The learned Judge further referred to Section 18 of the Act and held that the said provision or any other provision does not authorise the award of interim maintenance pending determination of rights to maintenance which is in contest in the suit. The facts in the above case are that in answer to the wife's application for maintenance, the husband contested the very right to maintenance in the suit and in the circumstances the learned Judges held that no interim maintenance could be ordered. The learned Judges referred to a decision of this Court reported in Abdul Rehman v. Tajunnissa Begum, AIR 1953 Mad 420, the decision of a Division Bench consisting of Rajamannar, C. J. and Venkatarama Aiyar, J. Venkatarama Aiyar, J., who delivered the judgment on behalf of the Bench observed at page 421 as follows :

"Thus there is overwhelming authority for the position that when the claim made in the plaint is contested, the Court has no inherent jurisdiction to grant relief until that claim is determined on its merits and that can only be by the final hearing in the suit. To grant any relief in an interim application would be to grant the relief which can properly be granted only by the ultimate determination in the suit and the decree following thereon. 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 relief is claimed the Code prescribes the conditions on which such relief could be granted. B

Click Here to Read the rest of this document