PURUSOTTAM MAHAKUD Vs. ANNAPURNA MAHAKUD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner calls in question the legality of the order dated 29-6-1995 passed by the learned District Judge, Keonjhar in Title Appeal No. 25 of 1994 allowing interim maintenance in favour of the opposite party. The relevant facts of the case are as follows :

(2.) Smt. Annapurna Mahakud, the opposite party before this Court brought Title Suit No. 72 of 1992 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Keonjhar against her husband, the present petitioner, for realisation of a sum of Rs. 43,000/- towards arrear maintenance and cost of construction of a separate residence claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month. The defendant while admitting the marriage challenged the claim of maintenance contending that the opposite party voluntarily left the marital home and refused to come and stay with the petitioner without just cause. The learned Civil Judge after hearing both the sides found that there was no ill-treatment to the plaintiff by the defendant and the plaintiff left the house of the husband wilfully and voluntarily to avoid his company without any just cause. Accordingly, he dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The aggrieved plaintiff preferred Title Appeal No. 25 of 1994 before the District Judge. In the appeal, she also filed a petition claiming interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/per month. The appellate Court after hearing both the sides passed the impugned order allowing her interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month which is now under challenge.

(3.) Before this Court it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that in absence of any statutory provision recognising the right to interim maintenance the order passed by the learned District Judge is without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the opposite party. Thus, the question which requires determination is whether the opposite party has any right to claim interim maintenance. In the above context, it can be said that the right of a wife to claim maintenance flows from S. 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. The right to claim interim maintenance in a suit or in an appeal which is a continuation of the suit flows from the substantive right recognised under S. 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. Since no forum is prescribed under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act to enforce the right recognised under S. 18 of the said Act the only forum available to enforce the said right is the Civil Court where suit can be instituted for enforcement of the said right and the Civil Court in exercise of its inherent power can grant interim maintenance. Such a view also finds support from the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Khadal Penthi v. Hulash Dei, AIR 1989 Orissa 137 wherein it has been held as follows :