Iragamreddi Chinna Konda Reddy vs Iragamreddi Narayanamma and Another

P.S. Narayana, J.—Heard both sides.

Sri L.J. Veera Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner-respondent-first defendant in I.A.No. 381 of 2004 in O.S.No. 107 of 2004 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur, would contend that inasmuch as it is a suit for partition, an application u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ''the Act") is not maintainable. The learned Counsel also made an attempt to touch the merits and demerits of the impugned order.

On the contrary, Sri Dushyanth Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the respondents-petitioners-plaintiffs, would contend that it may be true that Section 24 of the Act as such may not be applicable, but merely because the said provision had been quoted the Court is not powerless to grant interim maintenance and such power can be exercised u/s 151 C.P.C. The learned Counsel also relied upon a decision of Bombay High Court in Sangeeta Piyush Raj v. Piyus Chaturbhuj Raj, 1999 1 Femi-Juris CC 449 (Bom.).

There cannot be any doubt or controversy that Section 24 of the Act can be invoked in a proceeding under the Act. It is also not in controversy that an original suit was filed praying for relief of partition and certain other reliefs. It is pertinent to note that though the considerations in granting or refusing the interim maintenance in a matrimonial proceeding and also in other suits filed may be akin, there are certain dissimilarities, as well, some of the grounds which may be available in a matrimonial proceeding may not be available in the general suits for partition, for maintenance and other reliefs. Hence, always it would be appropriate to file appropriate application in this regard. Hence, this Court is not inclined to touch or express any opinion relating to the merits of the matter. It is also pertinent to note that at the earliest point of time this objection had been taken, but for the reasons best known the same had not been rectified.

Hence, the impugned order is hereby set aside giving liberty to the respondents, the plaintiffs in the suit to move appropriate application in this regard, if they are so advised. With the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is hereby disposed of. No costs.