PARCHURI RAJYA LAKSHMI Vs. PARCHURI VISWA SANKARA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revisions has been referred to us under the orders of the learned single Judge, on the question as to whether an order passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', granting interim maintenance and litigation expenses to the wife in an application filed by the husband under Section 9 of that Act for restitution of conjugal rights, survives independently giving the wife a right to claim the same though the application under Section 9 is dismissed either for non-prosecution or otherwise.

(2.) Though the case is listed for 'ex ITarte orders', yet Mr. R. Ramanarayana has appeared and on his request to be heard, we have heard both the sides.

(3.) The facts leading to the case are that the respondent had originally filed O.P.36/83 for restitution of conjugal rights and in that the petitioner filed I. A. 629/83 claiming interim maintenance and litigation expenses. The O.P. was dismissed as Section 9 of the Act had been declared unconstitutional by this Court. Later on, on the Supreme Court reversing the decision of this Court, the respondent again filed O.P. 127/84 claiming the very same relief The petitioner filed I.A.564/85 in that case in February, 1985 for interim maintenance and litigation expenses. The application was rejected holding that the property alleged as belonging to the respondent is not his individual property, but self-acquired property of his father. As against that C.RP. No.2513 of 1989 was filed in this Court which was disposed of on 3-12-1990 declaring the property to be the joint family property which the respondent having a share in it, and remanding the case to the trial Court for fixing the quantum of interim maintenance payable to the petitioner. The learned subordinate Judge fixed the interim maintenance at Rs.150/- and the litigation expenses as Rs.500/-, eventhough, in the application, the petitioner claimed for Rs.200/- as interim maintenance. Aggrieved by the order, she has preferred the present revision. During the pendency of the revision the O.P. 127/84 has been dismissed for default on 28-6-1991. Because of such fact, the submission was urged on behalf of the respondent at the hearing of the revision before the learned single judge that the original petition itself having been dismissed the question of payment of interim maintenance does not arise. In this revision we are confined only to the question of interim maintenance as submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.