S.K.MAL LODHA, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition under Section 115 CPC is directed against the order dated January 7, 1980 passed by the learned District Judge, Jodhpur in Civil Original Suit No. 22 of 1979. This order will dispose of the revision petition finally.
(2.) A few facts leading to the filing of this revision petition may briefly be recounted here(sic) The petitioner is a widow daughter in -law of the respondent. She filed a suit under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Ace, (Act No. 78 of 1956) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for grant of maintenance to her and her minor son. There is no specific provision for the grant of interim maintenance under the Act. But this Court, in Indar Mal v. Babulal , took the view that the Court has inherent power to grant inch interim allowance in suitable cases under the Act The learned District Judge, by his order dated October 18, 1977 fixed Rs. 130/ - per month as interim maintenance for the petitioner and her son. It is relevant to mention here that this amount was fixed having regard to the assessment order of the Income Tax. The income was assessed at Rs. 9,000/ -. On August 2, 1979, an application under Section 151 CPC was moved by the petitioner for enhancement of the interior maintenance. This application was supported by the affidavit of the petitioner. The application for the enhancement of the interim maintenance was resisted by the non -petitioner. The learned District judge, by his order, dated January 7, 1980 has dismissed the application for enhancement of the interim maintenance dated August 2, 1979. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this revision petition under Section 115 IPC. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, I am satisfied that the order under revision is not sustainable, as in passing the in pugned order, the learned District Judge has exercised his jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Learned Counsel for the non -petitioner has stated that revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC should not be invoked. He placed strong reliance on Golakhehari Kannugo v. Siu Bai and Anr. : AIR1966Ori58 , Hindustan Aeronautics v. Ajit Prasad : (1972)ILLJ170SC , Delhi Municipality v. Suresh Chandra : [1977]2SCR10 , Amit Singh v. Omprakash : AIR1978All15 and Hira Sharma v. Habibullah : AIR1979Pat232 . As I have already come to (sic) conclusion that the learned District Judge has exercised his jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity it is not necessary to (sic)ontumber the judgment by discussing all these authorities in detail.
(3.) IN DLF Housing and Construction Co. (P) Ltd. v. Sarop Singh and Ors. AIR 1971 SC2 42, the words used in Clause (c) of Section 115 CPC viz., 'illegally' and 'with material irregularity'' curie up for consideration before that Lordships of the Supreme Court. In that context, it was observed as under: The words 'illegally' and' with material Irregularity' as used in Clause (c) do not cover either errors of fact or of law; they do not refer to the decision arrived at but merely to the monret in which it is reached. The errors contemplated by this clause may relate either to breach of some provision of law or to material defects of procedure effecting the ultimate decision, and not to errors either of fact or of law, after the prescribed formalities have been complied with. ;