A court has jurisdiction under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code to grant interim maintenance in a suit for maintenance, even if the marital relationship is denied by the defendant.

P. C. MISRA, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision arises out of a suit filed by the present opposite parties 1 and 2 praying for recovery of properties worth Rs. 15,000/- from the defendants and for maintenance of Rs. 300/- per month for opposite party No. 1 and Rs. 100/- per month for opposite party No. 2 from the present petitioner with other consequential reliefs. An application for interim maintenance was filed in the trial Court which was objected to by the present petitioner on the ground that there is no relationship of husband and wife between him and opposite party No. 1 and also for the reason that the Court would have no jurisdiction to grant maintenance u/s. 151 of the Civil Procedure Code. The learned trial Court negatived both the contentions and allowed interim maintenance of Rs. 100/- and Rs. 50/- to opposite parties 1 and 2 respectively per month till the disposal of the suit. This revision was filed challenging the legality of the said order which on being placed before one of the Hon'ble Judges of this Court was referred to a Division Bench because of the reason that the learned Judge did not agree with the proposition of law that a mere denial of marital relationship would disentitle the plaintiff to claim interim maintenance in support of which two decisions of this Court, one reported in AIR 1977 Ori 96, Ram Chandra v. Snehalata Dei and another in AIR 1984 Ori 166 (Gajapati Naik v. Dukhnashini Naik) were cited before him. The matter was next placed before a Division Bench. But the Division Bench referred the matter to a larger Bench in view of the fact that one of the decisions, namely; AIR 1977 Orissa 96 (supra) was of a Division Bench. This matter has thus come to be decided by a Full Bench on the point as to whether mere denial of the marital relationship would disentitle the claim of the plaintiffs in this case for interim maintenance. The question whether the court would have jurisdiction to grant interim maintenance u/s. 151 of the Civil Procedure Code in the absence of any provision in the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, is interlinked with the point referred to the larger Bench for which both the points of law shall be dealt with.

( 2 ) BEFORE I enter into a discussion on the questions of law, I would like to state the facts relevant for the purposes of this revision. The opposite parties 1 and 2, who filed the suit (O. S. No. 40/1984-I) alleged that the marriage between the present petitioner and opposite party No. 1 was performed in the year 1973 and out of their lawful wedlock opposite party No. 2 was born. She further alleged that she was tortured and was driven out of the house of the petitioner whereafter she has been residing with her parents. Some of her ornaments are alleged to have been snatched away and she was deprived of her personal belongings worth Rs. 15,000/-, the recovery of which was prayed for in the suit. She also claimed maintenance of Rs. 300/- per month for herself and Rs. 100/- per month for her minor daughter. The present petitioner and his father and mother were arrayed as defendants 1, 2 and 3 respectively in the suit. All of them filed a joint written statement denying the plaint allegations. The specific case of the present petitioner is that opposite party No. 1 is not his legally married wife nor the opposite party No. 2 is the daughter of the petitioner. The further case of the petitioner is that opposite party No. 1 was of a questionable character and in furtherance of a rumour that there was a love affair between the petitioner and opposite party No. 1, the latter is trying to describe herself as his wife and opposite party No. 2 as his daughter, though there is no proof behind the alleged relationship. Since the marriage was disputed, it was further alleged that the question of any belonging being snatched away by the petitioner does not at all arise for consideration. During pendency of the said suit, an application was filed on behalf of the opposite parties 1 and 2 p