IRAGAMREDDI CHINNA KONDA REDDY Vs. IRAGAMREDDI NARAYANAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both sides.

(2.) Sri L.J.Veera Reddy, the learned counsel representing the revision petitioner- respondent-first defendant in I.A.No.381 of 2004 in O.S.No. 107 of 2004 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur, would contend that inasmuch as it is a suit for partition, an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') is not maintainable. The learned counsel also made an attempt to touch the merits and demerits of the impugned order.

(3.) On the contrary, Sri Dushyanth Reddy, the learned counsel representing the respondents-petitioners-plaintiffs, would contend that it may be true that Section 24 of the Act as such may not be applicable but merely because the said provision had been quoted the Court is not powerless to grant interim maintenance and such power can be exercised under Section 151 C.P.C. The learned counsel also relied upon a decision of Bombay High Court in Sangeeta Piyush Raj v. Piyus Chaturbhuj Raj.