B CHINNASAMY Vs. KANNAMMAL ALIAS MUNIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition is against order in I.A.No.286 of 1989 in O.S.No.182 of 1989, granting interim maintenance to the 1st respondent, who is the wife and respondents 2 to 4, who are the minor daughters, of the petitioner herein, pending disposal of the said suit for their maintenance and for marriage expenses of respondents 2 to 4. The said I.A. has been filed under Sec.18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act and Sec.151, C.P.C.

(2.) THE trial court awarded Rs.100 per month to each of the said daughters who are aged above 15, 1 and 2 1/2 years and Rs.150 to the said wife by way of interim maintenance. Against the said order this civil revision petition has been filed by the husband of the 1st respondent and father of the other respondents.

(3.) IT must also be noted that with reference to the interim relief of temporary injunction pending suit, which is specifically provided under O.39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C., the Supreme Court has held that the Court has got inherent power to issue temporary injunction even in circumstances not covered by the provisions of O.39, C.P.C, if the Court is of opinion that the interest of justice required that issue of such interim injunction. Vide Manohar v. Seth Hiralal, (1953)2 M.L.J. 823: 1953 S.C.J. 734: A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 527. Sec.94(e), C.P.C. also provides that in order to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated, the Court may, "if it is so prescribed," make such other interlocutory orders as may appear to the Court to be just and convenient. In the above said Supreme Court decision, in the light of Sec.94(c), C.P.C. which provides for temporary injunction has interpreted the above said expression if it is so prescribed" and held that when the circumstances are not covered by O.39, C.P.C. or by any Rules under Code the Court has inherent jurisdiction to issue temporary injunction in the interest of justice.