BABURAO JAGANNATH THOSAR Vs. LATA BABURAO THOSAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present respondents Lata and her daughter Sunita filed Special Civil Suit No. 69 of 1992 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangamner, for maintenance as per the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. In the said suit, they filed application for interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500 per month for Lata and Rs. 250 per month for Sunita. The learned Civil Judge, after hearing boths sides, directed to pay maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 450 per month to plaintiff with effect from 3-7-1992 till the final disposal of the suit as per order dated 17-10-1992. Being aggrieved by this order, the present revision petition is filed.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the ruling of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the matter of (Gorivelli Appanna v. Gorivelli Seethamma), reported in A. I. R. 1972 A. P. 62 and has contended that neither as per the provisions of section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, nor under the inherent powers of the Court, which are saved as per section 151, C. P. C. , the Court has jurisdiction to grant interim maintenance. However, this view of the Andhra Pradesh High Court is not approved by this Court in the matter of (Madhukar Akhand v. Smt. Bhima Akhand and others), reported in A. I. R. 1983 Bom. 480; and in the matter of (Harinder Kaur Narender Singh Dhanova and others v. Narendersingh Rattansingh Dhanova), reported in 1992 (2) Bom. C. R. 61 : 1993 Mh. L. J. 851. This Court has taken the consistent view that interim maintenance order can be passed even if the suit is under the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions And Maintenance Act. The above quoted ruling of the Andhra Pradesh High Court is dissented from in both these judgments of the Bombay High Court. I do not find any reason to depart from the view taken by this Court in the above cited rulings. In the suit for maintenance under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, the wife and daughter can claim interim maintenance and the Court, after considering all the circumstances, can grant interim maintenance.

(3.) IN this matter, the learned Civil Judge has directed that plaintiff No. 1 Lata should get maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300 per month and plaintiff No. 2 Sunita be given maintenance at the rate of Rs. 150 per month; and, therefore, it is directed that the defendant, the present petitioner, should pay interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 450 per month. The quantum of maintenance is fixed by the learned Civil Judge after considering all the evidence on record. The agricultural bagayat lands are in possession of the defendant, while the plaintiffs are without any source of income. So, from this point of view also, the order is legal and proper. No interference is called for.