- (1.)The plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for declaration to claim maintenance as contemplated under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'), from the petitioner, who is husband of respondent No. 1 and father of respondents 2 and 3. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs moved an application for the grant of interim maintenance. The trial Court after replying upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Smt. Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. The District Judge, Dehradun, 1998(2) P.L.R. 515 and a judgment of the Bombay High Court in Sangeeta Piyush Raj v. Piyush Chaturbhun Raj, A.I.R. 1998 Bombay 151, accepted the application and directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 300/- per month to each of the plaintiffs, as interim maintenance from the date of the. application. Hence this revision at the instance of the defendant.
(2.)I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that Section 18 of the Act does not authorise the award of interim maintenance pending decision of the claim as to the maintenance. He further contended that there being no provision in any statute expressly conferring such powers on the trial Court, interim maintenance could not have been granted. In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance on various judgments, namely, K.S. Deenadayalu Reddy v. Lalithakumari, A.I.R. 1953 Madras 402, Gorivelli Appanna v. Gorivelli Seethamma, A.I.R. 1972 Andhra Pradesh 62 (Division Bench), Sodagar Singh v. Smt. Harbhajan Kaur and Ors., (1977)79 P.L.R. 506, Ramchandra Behera and Ors. v. Smt. Snehalata Dei, A.I.R. 1977 Orissa 96 (Division Bench) and Makhan Singh v. Jagdish Kaur and Ors., (1991-2)102 P.L.R. 324. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand contended that the impugned order does not call for any interference and the trial Court was fully justified in granting interim maintenance and it, otherwise also, was necessary because the plaintiffs had no independent source of income to keep their bodies and souls together during the pendency of the suit. Learned counsel placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Smt. Savitri v. Govind Singh Rawat, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 984 and a recent judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Kulwant Singh v. Balwinder Kaur and Ors., (1999-2) 122 P.L.R. 699.
(3.)I have gone through the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner. No doubt, in all those judgments, it was held that there being no provision in the Act, the trial Court has no jurisdiction to grant interim maintenance. The observations and conclusions arrived at in one of the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner deserve to be noticed. In Gorrivelli Appanna's case (supra), it was argued on behalf of the husband that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to grant interim maintenance in a case in which the very right to maintenance was in contest. It was also argued that neither section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure nor Section 18 of the Act authorised the award of interim maintenance. On behalf of the wife, on the other hand, it was argued that it is the inherent right of every court, under Section 151 of the Code to act on the principle that every procedure is to be understood as permissible till it is shown to be prohibited by the law and that the Court may exercise such powers as may be necessary to do the right in the course of the administration of justice. It was further argued that grant of interim maintenance was permitted both by Section 151 of the Code and Section 18 of the Act. The Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court, after elaborately considering the matter, held as under:-
"The inherent powers recognised by Section 151 cannot extend to matters other than procedural. The Court cannot resort to the provisions of Section 151 to encroach upon substantive rights of parties or, in an interlocutory application, upon matters which await adjudication in the suit. No order under Section 151, Civil P.C. can be made except 'in aid of the suit'."

"Section 18 does not authorise the award of interim maintenance pending decision of suit in which the very claim to maintenance is in contest. The right of the wife to be maintained by the husband should not be confused with the power of the Court to award interim maintenance pending on action for maintenance where such right is in dispute. This Court has no power unless statute expressly confers such a power on it."