SUBRAMONIA IYER Vs. PADMAVATHI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant is the revision petitioner. The revision petition is from an order awarding interim maintenance to the plaintiff. The suit is for maintenance by a Brahmin widow against her husband's brother. The plaintiff claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 60 per month. The defendant contended in the written statement that the plaintiff was not entitled to more than Rs. 15 a month as maintenance. The plaintiff filed an application for an award of interim maintenance during the pendency of the suit and the court below awarded Rs. 30 a month as maintenance to her till the disposal of the suit. It is contended on behalf of the revision petitioner that the court had no jurisdiction to award as interim maintenance anything more than what was admitted by the defendant. I think that this contention must prevail. As observed by Venkatarama Iyer, J. in Hajee Mahomed Abdul Rahaman v. Tajunnissa Begum ( 1952 (2) MLJ 846 )

(2.) That also was a case relating to the award of interim maintenance in a suit for maintenance. The same view was held by the Madras High Court in an earlier decision, i.e., Lakshmana Dora Varu v. Mallu Dora Varu ( 1940 (2) MLJ 572 ). To the same effect is the decision of the Patna High Court in Gopal Saran Narayan v. Sita Debi (1923 (77) IC 718. An order awarding interim maintenance can be passed only under O.12 R.6 C. P. C. which empowers the court to make an order or give a judgment upon the admission of parties even before the final disposal of the suit. I, therefore, modify the order of the court below by reducing the rate of interim maintenance to Rs. 15 a month. The plaintiff will be allowed to draw this amount without security. The records of the case will be sent back immediately and the court below will see that a final decree is passed in the case as early as possible. The revision petition is allowed to this extent. There will be no order as to costs.