SHANT SAROOP Vs. USHA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DURING the pendency of a petition under section 18/20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1960, (it appears that due to an inadvertant clerical mistake instead of I960 1956 was written in the title of the suit. The confusion appears to be because the Central Act was of the year 1956 whereas the State Act is of the year 1960) an application was filed by the respondent and Neetu, the minor son of the parties, claiming interim maintenance. The application was filed under Section 151 C.P.C. The learned trial Judge disallowed the request of the wife for the grant of interim maintenance but granted maintenance, at the rate of Rs, 60/ -per month, in favour of the minor son of the parties Neetu. Aggrieved, against the order, the father, petitioner, has come up to this Court by means of this revision petition.

(2.) ALTHOUGH , the petitioner could be non -suited on the short ground that Neetu, in whose favour an order of maintenance of Rs. 60/ - per month had been made by the trial court, has not been impleaded as a respondent to the revision petition, and in his absence no order could be passed prejudicial to him, yet, in view of the fact that an interesting question of law has been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner in this case, I deem it proper to deal with the merits of the petition.

(3.) MR . Malik, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that since, The Hindu Adoption and maintenance Act, 1960, (hereinafter referred to the Act) does not contain any provision for the grant of interim relief during the pendency of a petition under Section 18/20 of the Act, no resort can be had to the provisions of Section 151 C.P.C. to grant interim relief. It is argued that since, the Legislature did not make any provision in the Act for the grant of any interim maintenance, it is not open to the court to assume any such power under the provisions of Section 151 C.P.C. as those provisions only deal with procedure and cannot be invoked to effect the substantive rights of the parties. Reliance in this respect has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Gorivelli Appanna vs. Gori -evelli Seethamma, reported as A.I.R. 1972 A.P. 62.