Bohar Singh vs Balwinder Kaur

Amar Dutt, J.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the averments made in the application for condonation of delay, I am of the view that there was sufficient cause for not filing the revision petition in time. Consequently, the delay in filing the revision is condoned.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This revision petition seeks to challenge the order dated 7.10.1998 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Faridkot by which the respondent''s application for grant of maintenance during the pendency of the suit filed by her under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act (for short the Act) was allowed and interim maintenance was fixed at the rate of Rs. 1,000/ p.m. w.e.f. the date of the application.

Balwinder Kaur had moved an application that interim maintenance should be granted at the rate of Rs. 2,500/ p.m. as the defendant was a rich person who owned about 9.5 acres of land and had been neglecting to maintain her for the last two years. This application was resisted by the husband who denied that he does not own the land as alleged by the wife as also on the ground that under the Act there was no provision according to which interim maintenance could be awarded. The trial Court had not accepted this contention and awarded maintenance as indicated hereinabove which has occasioned the filing of the present revision petition.

On behalf of the petitioner, the correctness of the order has been assailed only on the ground that the Court was not competent to award interim maintenance and, therefore, the impugned order should be set aside. Reliance has been placed upon the observations made in Ramchandra Behera and others v. Smt Snehalata Devi, AIR 1977 Orissa 96, Sodagar Singh v. Harbhajan Kaur and others, 1977 PLR 506 and Makhan Singh v. Jagdish Kaur and others, 1991(2) PLR 324, in support of this submission.

In Sodagar Singh''s case (supra) it was observed by this Court that under the Act there is no provision which authorises the Court to pass an order for payment of litigation expenses and maintenance allowance pendente lite. In Makhan Singh''s case (supra), this court relied upon the observations in Ramchandra Behera''s case (supra) to hold that there is no specific provision for the grant of maintenance pendente lite under Section 18 of the Act.

The proposition of law laid down in the aforesaid authorities was sought to be controverted on behalf of the respondent and it was pointed out that the view taken in these authorities run counter to the law laid down in Adigarla Simhachalam v. Adigaral Papamma, AIR 1973 A.P. 31; Tarini Gupta Chowdhury v. Smt. Gouri Gupta Chowdhury, AIR 1968 Cal. 567; Madhukar Akhand v. Smt. Bhima Akhand and another, AIR 1983 Bombay 480; Govind Panigrahi v. Tarkeswari Panigrahi, 1987(2) HLR 550; Sivankutty v. S. Komalakumari and others, AIR 1989 Kerala 124; Neelam Malhotra v. Rajinder Malhotra and others, AIR 1994 Delhi 234 : 1993(3) RRR 577 (Delhi).

The ratio of all these judgments is to the effect that though the Act does not provide for grant of interim maintenance pending the final decision of the proceedings yet the court by virtue of its duty to render fair justice and its inherent power, under Section 151 CPC has wide discretion to grant interim relief. The consensus of opinion seems to be that power to grant interim maintenance was within the width and amplitude of Section 18 of the Act and while exercising the power the Court should not ignore considering the said reality of long delay in the final disposal of the cases.

A Single Bench of this Court while considering all these judgments in Kanwar Vishwajit Singh v. Nirmala Kanwar and another, 1991(2) PLR 277 had taken the view to the same effect.

These authorities have been relied by the counsel for the respondent to support the argument that while dealing with the application under Section 18 of the Act, the court has power to grant interim maintenance.

On going through the decision rendered in Kanwar Vishwajit Singh''s case (supra) it becomes clear that the Single Judge took into consideration the observations made in Sodagar Singh''s case (supra) and has also relied upon Puran Singh and others v. Mst. Har Kaur and another, 1970 Cur. L.J. 648 in which a Division Bench of this Court had considered this question and had held that the Court while disposing of an application under Section 18 of the Act was entitled to give interim maintenance and litigation expenses. To the same effect is the view taken in Sunita Gandhi v. Upinder Gandhi, 1993(3) PLR 397.

In view of the law laid down in Puran Singh and Sunita Gandhi''s case (supra) and Kanwar Vishwajit Singh''s case (supra), I have no hesitation to hold that the Court while dealing with an application for the grant of maintenance under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act is entitled to grant interim maintenance.

For the reasons recorded above, this petition has to be dismissed being devoid of any merit. Ordered accordingly.