HAJEE MAHOMED ABDUL RAHMAN Vs. TAJUNNISSA BEGUM AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the order of Panchapakesa Aiyar J. directing the appellant to pay to respondent 1 a sum of Rs. 500 by way of interim maintenance pending the disposal of a suit on the Original Side of this Court. Respondent 1 in her plaint alleged that the appellant had married her in 1943 and that she continued to live with him for some time but that he latterly neglected her and did not maintain her and the relief prayed for is that defendant 1 be directed to pay arrears of maintenance and also future maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500 a month. The plaintiff also filed an application for an award of interim maintenance during the pendency of the suit. Defendant 1 contested the claim. He denied he ever married the plaintiff and disputed his liability to pay any maintenance. The application for award of interim maintenance came up before Panchapakesa Aiyar J. After taking some evidence, he properly declined to express any opinion on the merits of the case but directed that defendant 1 should pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 500 as interim maintenance pending the final disposal of the suit. It is against that order that defendant 1 has preferred this appeal.

(2.) MR . K. Rajah Aiyar, learned advocate for the appellant, contends that the Court had no jurisdiction to award interim maintenance in a case where the claim is contested. In - - 'Latchanna Dora v. Malludora',, 1940 2 Mad LJ 572, the facts were that the plaintiff filed a suit to recover possession of certain properties or in the alternative for partition, and during the pendency of the suit, he made an application for the award of interim maintenance to him. The District Judge awarded Rs. 250 a month. In revision, Horwill J. set aside that order on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction to make such an order when the claim is in dispute. The learned Judge observed:

(3.) BOTH sides have represented to us that having regard to the nature of the contentions, it would be desirable to have an early determination of the suit. In C. S. No. 235 of 1951 the present respondent 1 claims an amount by way of mahr under the Muhammadan law. The defence in that suit is the same as that in the suit out of which this appeal has arisen viz., that the plaintiff was not the wife of defendant 1 and was not entitled to any claim by way of mahr. That suit will be posted for hearing on 10 -11 -1952. It is also desirable that the suit out of which this appeal has arisen, the maintenance suit, should, if possible, be tried with it but the hearing of C. S. No. 235 should not be delayed on account of any delay in the preparation of the maintenance suit. There will be no order as to costs in this appeal.