GIAN DEVI Vs. AMAR NATH AGGARWAL ETC.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned counsel for the applicant has referred to several reported cases, to show that interim maintenance can be ordered during the pendency of a suit for maintenance. Those authorities for the purposes of reference, are reported as : AIR1955Mad571 Muniammal v/s. : AIR1968Cal305 , Smt. Gouri Gupta Chandhury v/s. : AIR1968Cal405 , Nemal Chand Jain v/s. : AIR1968Cal567 , Tarini Gupta Chowdhury v/s. Smt. Gouri Gupta Chowdhury. The present application has been moved during the pendency of a pauper application and the learned counsel for the respondent urges that the authorities show that interim maintenance can be ordered in a suit but not during the pendency of a pauper application. The learned counsel for the respondent has offered to pay interim maintenance @ Rs. 200.00 per month starting from the date of institution of the suit in this Court. This offer is without prejudice to the eventual maintenance ordered or fixed and also without prejudice to the maintenance which may be fixed in the petition, under Sec. 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which is pending. The respondent is, however, not willing to pay the arrears of maintenance immediately and wants three years time to make up this payment. The offer is not acceptable to the petitioner, who claims that the arrears of maintenance should be paid from 1971 is admitted and also that the arrears should not be withheld for a period of three years. On referring to the authorities cited by Mr. Sethi to submit that there can be no order for maintenance passed at this stage, I find that, A.I.R. 1952 Mys 76, Thimmayya v/s. M. B. Sadasivappa and another, is an authority concerning the grant of a temporary injunction during the pendency of a pauper application. It was held by the Court that a temporary injunction could only be granted in a 'suit'. Referring to Sec. 94 of the Civil Procedure Code it was held that an injunction could only be granted if the prescribed conditions were satisfied. The application not being a suit. it was held no interim injunction could be granted. The present application is not one for the grant of an interim injunction. It is an application for interlocutory order and, therefore. Sec. 94 applies. There are no restrictions in the Code regarding the passing of such interlocutory orders. The same provision of Law apply to the pauper applications as apply to suits.

(2.) Turning now to the cases cited by the learned counsel for the applicant, I find that the judgment of the Calcutta High Court reported as Nemal Chand Jain v/s. : AIR1968Cal405 and the judgment reported as Tarini Gupta Chowdhury v/s. : AIR1968Cal567 , were concerned with the circumstances in which an interim maintenance order could be passed during the pendency of a suit for maintenance. It was urged before the Court that an order concerning the grant of interim maintenance could be passed only under Sec. 151 of the Code. However, the Court held that this was not so. It was decided that once the proceedings under Sec. 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, were before the Court, the Court had full jurisdiction to grant maintenance to the wife or other person who was before the Court. It was observed thus by the Court : -

(3.) I have been referred to the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1966. The provisions of that Act as far as present question is concerned are quite plain. It is the duty of a Hindu, during his or her lifetime, to maintain his or her legitimate or illegitimate children and his or her aged or infirm parents. This is provided by Sec. 20 of the Act. The applicant is 76 years old and, Therefore, obviously comes within the category of aged or infirm parents. The applicant also comes within the category of 'dependent' as defined in Sec. 21 of the Act. The maintenance of dependents is dealt with in Ss. 22 and 23 of the Act. It is stated in Sec. 22 of the Act as follows: -