1991 Supreme(All) 558
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
S. N. SAHAY
DILIP KUMAR - Appellant
Versus
SPECIAL JUDGE, BARABANKI - Respondents
W. P. 2475 Of 1990
Decided On : 07/16/1991
B.SINGH, H.S.SAHAI, UMESH CHANDRA
The court has no inherent power under Section 151 CPC to pass an order for payment of interim maintenance in a declaratory suit.
Headnote:
MAINTENANCE - HINDU ADOPTIONS AND MAINTENANCE ACT, 1956 - SECTION 18 - CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 - SECTION 151 - INHERENT POWERS OF THE COURT - INTERIM MAINTENANCE - JURISDICTION - DECLARATORY SUIT - HUSBAND AND WIFE - DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE - CUSTOM - NO JURISDICTION TO GRANT INTERIM MAINTENANCE.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner filed a suit for declaration that there is no relationship of husband and wife between the parties with effect from 29/07/1987. During the pendency of the suit, respondent No. 3 moved an application for maintenance pendente lite. The trial court and the revisional court allowed the application and directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 200 per month as maintenance.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the inherent power of the court under Section 151 CPC cannot be exercised to pass an order for payment of interim maintenance in a declaratory suit. The court reasoned that the right to maintenance is a statutory right under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, and that the court has no inherent power to grant interim maintenance in a suit for declaration of status.
Issues: Whether the court has jurisdiction under Section 151 CPC to pass an interim order directing payment of maintenance during the pendency of a suit for declaration that the relationship of husband and wife does not exist between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the inherent power of the court under Section 151 CPC cannot be exercised to pass an order for payment of interim maintenance in a declaratory suit. The court reasoned that the right to maintenance is a statutory right under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, and that the court has no inherent power to grant interim maintenance in a suit for declaration of status. The court further held that the order for payment of interim maintenance is in the nature of a temporary mandatory injunction and that the court has no jurisdiction to grant such an injunction in a declaratory suit.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned orders dated 17/07/1989 and 25/01/1990 contained in Annexures-4 and 5 to the writ petition.
( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against the concurrent orders of the Courts below directing the petitioner to pay maintenance allowance to respondent No. 3 during the pendency of the suit.
( 2 ) THE petitioner Dilip Kumar has instituted a suit for declaration against Smt. Vimla Devi respondent No. 3 in the Court of Civil Judge Barabanki. The relief which has been claimed by the petitioner in the suit is that it may be declared that there is no relationship of husband and wife between the parties with effect from 29/07/1987. The suit has been brought on the allegations that the marriage between the parties has been dissolved by mutual agreement according to custom. This allegation is denied by respondent No. 3. During the pendency of the suit respondent No. 3 moved an application dated 16/11/1988 that the petitioner may be directed to pay her a sum of Rs. 1,000. 00 as expenses for litigation and Rs. 500. 00 per month as maintenance pendente lite. The petitioner filed objection against the said application. The learned Civil Judge partly allowed the application of respondent No. 3 by order dated 17/07/1989. He rejected the prayer for expenses but he directed payment of a sum of Rs. 200. 00 per month as maintenance during the pendency of the suit. The learned Civil Judge took the view that since the suit involves the determination of marital rights the Court has jurisdiction to grant pendente lite mcintenance in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 151 CPC. The petitioner filed a revision against the aforesaid order. The learned Civil Judge, Barabanki affirmed the above view and dismissed the revision by order dated 25/01/1990. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the orders dated 17/07/1989 and 25/01/1990 which are respectively contained in Annexures 4 and 5 to the writ petition.
( 3 ) THE question arising for determination in this writ petition is whether in a suit for declaration that the relationship of husband and wife does not exist between the parties, the Court has jurisdiction under Section 151 CPC to pass an interim order directing payment of maintenance during the pendency of the suit. At the very out set, it may be observed that my attention has not been drawn to any case in which this point has been specifically decided by this Court or the Supreme Court. The judgments of the Courts below contain a reference to certain cases which were cited by the counsel for the parties in support of their respective contentions. Among those cases in Sivankutty v. S. Komalakumari, AIR 1989 Kerala 124 and Khandal Penthi v. Hulash Dei, AIR 1989 Orissa 137 (FB) it has been held that an order for interim maintenance may be passed in favour of the wife in a suit for maintenance brought by her against the husband. These cases are not very apposite because the matter was considered in relation to a suit for maintenance which is different in nature from a suit for declaration.
( 4 ) THE right of a Hindu wife to claim maintenance from her husband is a statutory right which owes its existence to Section 18 Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. This right was also available to her under the old Hindu Law. But the rules of the old Hindu Law ceased to have effect by virtue of Section 4 of the said Act. The right to maintenance is, therefore, a statutory right now. There is no provision in the said Act the enforcement of the said right and so the right is indisputably enforceable by filing a suit in the Civil Court under Section 9 CPC. Neither the said Act nor the CPC contains any provision for the grant of interim maintenance during the pendency of the suit; there is no prohibition either. It is, however, recognised that the power to grant interim maintenance is in the nature of an implied power, as held in Tarini Gupta Chowdhury v. Gouri Gupta Chowdhury, AIR 1968 Cal 567 and is implicit, ancillary and necessary corollary to the power to entertain the suit and pass final orders as he