A court has the power to grant interim maintenance under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, to a widowed daughter-in-law who is unable to maintain herself and who has no other means of support.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition u/s. 115 of the C. P. C. (for short the 'code') is directed against the order dated 28-9-1988 by the IVth Addl. Judge to the District Judge, Indore in M. J. C. No. 21 / 1986 whereby interim maintenance in the sum of Rs. 300/- per month has been granted to the N. As.

( 2 ) CIRCUMSTANCES giving rise to this revision petition are these: The N. A. No. 1 is the widow of the petitioner Sachchanand's deceased son Pritamanand, who died on 16-91985. The N. A. No. 2 Punitanand aged about 5 years is the son of N. A. No. 1. After her widowhood, the N. A. No. 1 together with N. A. No. 2 is residing with her father in Jairampura Colony, Indore.

( 3 ) THE N. As. on 23-4-1986 filed an application u/s. 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short the 'act') against the present petitioner who is resident of Jai Jagat Colony, Indore, claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month.

( 4 ) ACCORDING to N. A. No. 1, she was married to Pritamanand in June, 1983 and out of this wed-lock, the N. A. No. 2 was born in April, 1984. In Sept. , 1985 Pritamanand suddenly died and after about 2 to 3 months of the death of Pritamanand, the petitioner started harrassing the N. As. In the circumstances, on 27-11-85 the N. A. No. 1 together with the N. A. No. 2, with bare clothings left her Husband's house and started living with her father Karamveer and her mother Parmeshwari.

( 5 ) IN the application it has been stated that Pritamanand along with his brother and the N. A. No. 1 constituted a Joint Hindu Family. He was running a partnership firm under the name and style of M/s. Best Products Corporation, Sanver Road, Indore and with the profits thereof the joint family property was purchased. He was also carrying on money lending business and with his one lack rupees and his own money, the petitioner carried a money lending business.

( 6 ) REGARDING the status of the parents of the N. A. No. 1 it was stated that her brother and the sister work in the Bank and with their earnings it is with difficulty that the house hold expenses of the family of the N. A. No. 1's father is being maintained.

( 7 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, by amendment it has been stated that the mother of the N. A. No. 1 died on 29-7-1988.

( 8 ) DURING the pendency of the application u/s. 19 of the 'act'; the N. As. filed an application for grant of interim maintenance.

( 9 ) THE application was opposed by the petitioner on various grounds. According to the petitioner the Act contains no provision for grant of interim maintenance, and though in relation to Sec. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Apex Court of the country has recognised to Court's power to grant interim maintenance, no such maintenance can be granted under the 'act'. It is urged that it was in the context of the object behind the enactment of Sec. 125 of the Code that the power was recognised. It is further urged that the liability of the father-in-law u/s. 19 of the 'act' is dependent on several conditions and as those conditions do not exist and the right to claim maintenance is being contested, there can be no question of grant of interim maintenance. In support of this submission reliance was placed on the decisions in Aboobucker's case, AIR 1958 Madras 287 and G. Appanna's case, AIR 1972 Andh Pra.

( 10 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the N. As. is that on principle the power to grant interim relief is well recognised. It is urged that in granting interim relief only a prima facie entitlement has to be found and there can be no prejudging of issues.

( 11 ) THE point for consideration is whether the revision petition deserves to be allowed.

( 12 ) ON a careful consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties in the context of the documents and the affidavits on record. I find that the impugned order is proper and does not call for any interference.

( 13 ) SECTION 19 of the 'act' may usefully be reproduced. I