Jurisdiction of Court to award interim maintenance during pendency of the suit.

This civil revision petition is against order in I.A.No.286 of 1989 in O.S.No.182 of 1989, granting interim maintenance to the 1st respondent, who is the wife and respondents 2 to 4, who are the minor daughters, of the petitioner herein, pending disposal of the said suit for their maintenance and for marriage expenses of respondents 2 to 4. The said I.A. has been filed under Sec.18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act and Sec.151, C.P.C.

2. The trial court awarded Rs.100 per month to each of the said daughters who are aged above 15, 1 and 2 1/2 years and Rs.150 to the said wife by way of interim maintenance. Against the said order this civil revision petition has been filed by the husband of the 1st respondent and father of the other respondents.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Court has no jurisdiction to award interim maintenance, that Sec.18 of the said Act does not speak of interim maintenance and that the court could grant maintenance decree only after the trial of the suit. The learned counsel cited Haji Mahomed Abdul Rahman v. Tajunnissa Begam, (1952)2 M.L.J. 846.I.L.R. 1953 Mad 992-A.I.R 1953 Mad. 420, G.Appanna v. Seethamma, A.I.R 1972 A.P. 62 and Ramachandra v. Snehalata Dei, A.I.R. 1977 Ori 96. But none of these decisions holds absolutely that the Court has no power at all to grant interim maintenance. Haji Mahomed Abdul Rahman v. Tajunnissa Begam, (1952) 2 M.L.J. 846: A.I.R. 1953 Mad 420, referred to above only pointed out that an order granting interim injunction, pending disposal of the suit in favour of the plaintiff, whose status as lawfully wedded wife was hotly contested by the defendant was one passed without jurisdiction. But, in the present case, admittedly the 1st respondent is the wife of the petitioner and the other respondents are the daughters. So, Haji Mahomed Abdul Rahman v. Tajunnissa Begum, (1952)2 M.L.J. 846: A.I.R. 1953 Mad. 420, referred to above, has no application. In fact, in Deivasigamani Udayar v. Rajarani Ammal, (1973)1 M.L.J. 363: A.I.R 1973 Mad. 369, it has been held that where the relationship between the parties is admitted, but the claim is contested by the husband, the Court has jurisdiction to grant interim maintenance, notwithstanding the absence of a specific provision in the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act and that the grant of maintenance ultimately is a matter of course once the status of parties is admitted. In the said decision, the above said earlier decision in Haji Mahomed Abdul Rahman v. Tajunnissa Begum, (1952)2 M.L.J. 846: A.I.R 1953 Mad. 420, was distinguished on the ground that in Haji Mahomed Abdul Rahman v. Tajun-nissa Begum, (1952)2 M.L.J. 846: A.I.R. 1953 Mad 420, the husband denied the marriage. The learned Judge, who decided Deivasigamani Udayar v. RajaraniAmmal, (1973)1 M.L.J. 363: A.I.R 1973 Mad. 369 referred to above, rightly says that "this circumstance explains the ultimate conclusion of the learned Judges in Haji Mahomed Abdul Rahman v. Tajunnissa Begum, (1952)2 M.L.J. 846: A.I.R. 1953 Mad 420, in refusing to order interim maintenance pending suit." Likewise in Deivasigamani Udayar v. RajaraniAmmal, (1973)1 M.LJ. 363: A.I.R. 1973 Mad. 369, referred to above, the above referred to G.Appanna v. Santhamma, A.1.R 1972 A.P. 62, was also distinguished in G.Appanna v. Santhamma, A.I.R 1972 A.P. 72, referred to above, the husband contested the wife’s very right to maintenance in the suit and submitted that he had already obtained a decree for restitution of conjugal rights against his wife and that no award of maintenance could, therefore, he made against him. In that context only, the learned Judges of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that inherent powers under Sec.151, C.P.C. could not be invoked for granting interim maintenance.

4. It must also be noted that with reference to the interim relief of temporary injunction pending suit, which is specifically provided under O.39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C., the Supreme