VANGARA SATAYANARAYANA Vs. VANGARA VENKATARATNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revision petitions relate to the grant of interim maintenance pending disposal of the main original petitions for maintenance under sections 18 and 20 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. The Court below granted interim maintenance of Rs. 200/- in all payable to the rate of Rs. 100/-each by the two respondents.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Court has no jurisdiction to grant interim maintenance as such order is not contemplated by the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act or inherent power under Sec. 151 C.P.C. In support of this contention reliance is placed upon the decision of this Court reported in G. Appanna vs. G. Seethamma #1 wherein the Division Bench of this Court held that the inherent powers cannot extend to powers other than procedural and the court cannot resort to provisions of Sec. 151 C.P.C. to encroach upon substantive rights of parties or in an interlocutory application upon matters which await adjudication and further no order under Sec 151 C.P.C. can be made except in a suit. It is further held that Sec. 18 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintsnance Act does not authorise the award of interim maintenance pending decision of suit in which the very claim to maintenance is in contest and the Court has no power unless statute expressly confers such a power on it. The learned counsel for the respondent referred to Savitri vs. Shri Govind Singh #2 (SLP Crl) No. 1028/84. The Supreme Court while considering the application for maintenance under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. held that apart from the provision enabling the passing of interim order the Code does not expressly prohibit the making of such an order and in the absence of prohibition it is appropriate that the Magistrate should direct the person to pay some reasonable sum by way of maintenance to the applicant pending final disposal of the application. It is held that if a civil court can pass such interim orders on affidavits, there is no reason why a Magistrate should not rely on them for the purpose of Issuing directions regarding payment of interim maintenance. It is further held that having regard to the nature of the jurisdiction exercised by a Magistrate under Sec. 125 of the Code, the said provision should be interpreted as conferring power by necessary implication on the Magistrate to pass an order directing a person against whom an application is made under it to pay a reasonable sum by way of interim maintenance pending final disposal of the application and the same position is applicable to the Maintenance claimed under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act also. In I.T.D. vs. Mohammed Kunhari #3 the Supreme Court held that the power to grant stay by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is incidental or ancillary to appellate jurisdiction though there is no provision enabling the grant of stay. The power to grant interim relief is implicit and in-built in the grant of main relief and therefore the Court has ample power to grant interim maintenance pending the disposal of the main application for maintenance, in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court the decision of this Court in MR 1972 A.P. 62 (1 supra) cannot be considered as good law.

(3.) The order of the court below granting interim maintenance is confirmed. Civil Revision Petitions dismissed. No costs.