SOMANATH Vs. SABITRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Husband in a suit for maintenance by the wife is the petitioner in the civil revision and the appellant in the Miscellaneous Appeal (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner'). As the parties are the same and both the matters arise out of the same suit, I heard them together and dispose of the same in this common judgement.

(2.) During the pendency of the suit for maintenance, the wife (plaintiff) filed an application for interim maintenance as well as for litigation expenses purporting to be one under S.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Trial Court considered the application and granted Rs. 120/- per month towards maintenance and Rs. 30/- per month towards litigation expenses. For recovery of the said amount an execution case was filed by the wife. To facilitate recovery of the amount in the execution proceeding, she filed an application in the suit to appoint a receiver in respect of salary of the defendant-petitioner. The same having been allowed the Misc. Appeal has been filed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that S.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is not applicable to a suit for maintenance under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act by the wife for maintenance. The contention is well-founded in law. However, the same would be of no assistance to the petitioner. It has been now well-settled in a decision reported in (1985) 1 Orissa LR 486 Subhash Chandra Biswal v. Maluni Biswalo), that in a suit for maintenance interim maintenance can be granted in exercise of inherent power. Wrong nomenclature by mentioning the petition to be one under S.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act would not defeat the relief to the wife and Court is not deprived of the exercise of inherent power under S.151, C.P.C.