KRUSHNA CHANDRA NANDA Vs. MANORAMA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE husband is the petitioner and is defendant in the Court below. The wife filed an application under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and also filed an application for grant of interim maintenance.

(2.) MR . Murty appearing for the petitioner contends that under Section 18 of the Act, there is no power on the Court to grant interim maintenance and accordingly, the order of the Subordinate Judge granting interim maintenance is without jurisdiction. A reading of the provisions of Section 18 of the Act no doubt supports the contention of Mr. Murty, the learned counsel for the petitioner, but in my view the power to make an interim order for maintenance pending an application under Section 18 of the Act is implicit in the section. Such a relief must be held to be ancillary and the power would be necessary corollary to the power of the Court to entertain the application for substantive relief. There have been a series of decision of this Court taking the aforesaid view which in my opinion is also in consonance with the spirit of the law. In the case of Ramachandra Bahara and others v. Smt. Snehatata Dai, AIR 1977 Orissa 96, a Bench of this Court held.