SUKHMINDER SINGH Vs. BALJEET KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed against the order of Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Dhuri granting interim maintenance to the respondents who are the wife and daughter of the petitioner.

(2.) The respondents filed the suit in forma pauperis for maintenance under Section 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. During the pendency of the application for permission to sue as an indigent person the respondents filed the application for grant of interim maintenance. The Trial Court granted maintenance to the wife @ Rs. 400/- and to the second respondent-daughter of the petitioner @ Rs. 300/- per month. Aggrieved by the same, this revision petition has been filed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Court has no power to grant interim maintenance during the pendency of an application to permit the plaintiffs-applicants to file the suit as an indigent person. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decision of this Court in Saudagar Singh v. Smt. Harbhajan Kaur and Ors. , (1977)79 P. L. R. 506, wherein the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court held that the Act does not authorise the passing of any order for the payment of litigation expenses and maintenance allowance pendente lite. The learned Counsel further relied upon the decision of another learned Single Judge of this Court in Dr. Devinder Singh v. Harminder Kaur, A. I. R. 1984 P&h 40, in which it was held that the interim maintenance cannot be, granted to the wife while her application to sue her husband in forma pauperis for maintenance is still pending. He also relied upon a decision of another learned Single Judge of this Court in Makhan Singh v. Jagdish Kaur and Ors. , 1992 Civil Court Cases 29, wherein it has been held that interim maintenance cannot be granted. I am unable to agree with the above views expressed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice and learned Single Judges of this Court. The Calcutta High Court in Tarini Gupta v. Gouri Gupta, A. I. R. 1968 Cal. 567, and in Nemal Chand v. Smt. Lila Jain, A. I. R. 1968 Cal. 405 held that the Court had the power to grant interim maintenance under Section 18 of the Act. In Indra Mal v. Babu Lal, A. I. R. 1977 Raj. 160, it was observed that the power to grant maintenance is implicit and ancillary to the power to entertain a suit for maintenance and the Court has power to grant interim maintenance under Section 18 of the Act. It has been held by the Karnataka High Court in K. Shankare Gowda v. Smt. S. Bharathi, A. I. R. 1975 Knt. 17, if there is a general right to claim maintenance under the statute and where the relationship is not disputed, the power to grant interim maintenance flows from the statute itself. It has also been held by the Delhi High Court in Gian Devi v. Amar Nath, I. L. R. 1975 (1) Delhi 811 that where a petition is filed to permit the wife to sue in forma pauperis for maintenance during the pendency of that petition also, interim maintenance can be granted. It is no doubt true that a learned Single Judge of this Court in Makhan Singh v. Jagdish Kaur and Ors. , 1992 C. C. C. 29 referred to a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Gorevelli Appanna v. Gorivelli Seethamma, A. I. R. 1972 A. P. 02, wherein it has been held that Section 18 of the Act does not authorise the award of interim maintenance pending decision on the claim to maintenance. That decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court was dissented by the same High Court in Adigarla Simhachalam v. Adigarla Pappamma, A. I. R. 1973 A. P. 31 holding that even during the pendency of the proceedings instituted by the wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, she-can claim interim maintenance.