AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sat Pal, J.—This petition has been directed against the order dated 15.5.1997 passed by Civil Judge (JD) Narnaul. By this order, the learned trial Court has directed the petitioner to pay maintenance at Rs. 1,000/- each to the respondents who are his children. This maintenance has been directed to be paid from the date of application i.e. 3.1.1997.
Mr. Goel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is employed as a Master getting monthly salary of Rs.6,400/- and the mother of the respondent (who is the wife of the petitioner) is also a JBT teacher and is earning approximately Rs.5500/- per month. He further submits that the learned trial Court was not right in granting the interim maintenance as there is no provision for interim maintenance in the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the following judgments:
Gorivelli Appanna Vs. Gorivelli Setthamma,
2 Ramchandra Behera and Others Vs. Smt. Snehalata Dei,
Sadogar Singh v. Smt. Harbhajan Kaur and Others, 1977 PLR 506.
The learned counsel further submitted that even if the application for interim maintenance was maintainable, the learned trial Court has granted the complete relief which could have been granted in case the respondents had succeed in the main case.
Mr. Mittal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, however, submits that the application for interim maintenance was maintainable in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in ITO Cannanore v. M.K. Mohmmad Punni, AIR 1969 SC 430. In this connection he has also placed reliance on a judgment of Delhi High Court in Neelam Malhotra Vs. Rajinder Malhotra and Others, and a judgment of this Court in Kanvar Vishvajit Singh v. Nirmala Kanwar, 1991 (2) PLR 277. The learned counsel also submits that one of the respondent is studying in 10+2 (Science medical group) and the other respondents is studying in Matric with science. He, therefore, contends that the amount of interim maintenance is not on the higher side.
After hearing the learned counsel of the parties and having perused the impugned order, I do not find any merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel of the petitioner that the application for interim maintenance is not maintainable. It is settled law that once a Court has got the jurisdiction to grant complete relief, that Court itself has got the jurisdiction to grant interim relief keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. In this connection reference may be made to the case of M.K. Mohammad Punni (supra). Accordingly, this contention raised by the learned counsel of the petitioner is rejected.
As regards the amount of maintenance, it is true, that the respondents have claimed only Rs. 1,000/- per month each in the main petition. Since the evidence is yet to be led, I am of the opinion that it would meet the ends of justice if the amount of interim maintenances reduced from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs.750/- to each of the respondents. With this modification in the amount of maintenance, the petition stands dismissed.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court is directed to expedite the disposal of the main case preferably within one year.