Full Judgment
Ramesh Madhav Bapat, J.
1. The 1st respondent herein had filed a suit OS No.67 of 1999 claiming maintenancefrom the petitioner herein. In the said suit she filed IA No.488 of 1999 seeking interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- p.m. to herself and Rs.1,000/- p.m. each to 2nd and 3rd respondents herein. On hearing both the parties, the learned Judge of the Family Court at Vijayawada, was pleased to grant maintenance at Rs.1,000/- to the 1st respondent herein and Rs.600/- each to the respondents 2 and 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the defendant in the OS No.67 of 1999 has filed the present civil revision petition.
2. The petitioner herein is the husband of the first respondent and father of the respondents 2 and 3. Marriage was performed on 1-9-1983 at Vijayawada as per Hindu Dharma Shastras and the respondents 2 and 3 were born out of the wedlock and the respondent No.2 is aged about 16 years and the respondent No.3 is aged about 14 years. They were happy for about one year after the marriage and thereafter the petitioner herein started consuming alcohol and harassing the respondent No.l and the petitioner never looked after the welfare of his wife or the children, who were suffering from rheumatic pains. The petitioner used to abuse them in filthy language having been addicted to vices and drove away the respondents from his house on 30-4-1999 and inspite of exchange of notices, there was no change in the attitude of the petitioner herein, that the respondents require a sum of Rs.2,000/- each towards their maintenance and the petitioner is working as Traction Driver, South Central Railway and earning more than Rs.9,000/- per month.
3. The petitioner herein has admitted the marriage and paternity of the two children, but denied the harassment and hisaddiction to vices, etc., and submitted that he was affectionate towards the respondents, but his wife wanted lavish life and used to spend all his salary and that she applied for a loan of Rs.5.00 lakhs without any information to him, brought her parents who beat him and sent him away from the house and that she established a unit of paper pressed leaf plates at Door No.23-32-6, Paperaju street, Vijayawada and earning Rs. 1,0007- per day and that she employed four persons in her unit and also paying rents for the house and as such she is not entitled for any maintenance, that he is only earning Rs.2,000/- per month towards his salary and prayed for dismissal of the petition.
4. After hearing the arguments and based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada has granted Rs.1,000/- to the first respondent and Rs.600/- each to the respondents 2 and 3 towards their maintenance. Against that order, the present CRP is filed.
5. It appears from the record that the respondents had filed the petition under Section 17 of the Family Courts Act. The Counsel who appeared for the respondents herein was probably was not aware of Section 17 of the Family Courts Act. It does not speak about granting of maintenance to the parties. Therefore the section quoted by the learned Counsel who appeared for the plaintiffs-respondents in the lower Court itself is wrong. The wrong was also not noticed by the learned Judge of the Family Court at Vijayawada and on the strength of the wrong section he proceeded to pass the order in question. It is surprising to note that the learned Judge observed in the impugned order that interim maintenance can be granted under Section 151 CPC. This Court is unable to understand from where the Counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents herein gets this provision for seeking interim maintenance under Section 151 CPC. The learned Judge also observed in his order 'it is settled lawthat under Section 151 CPC interim maintenance can be granted.' From where the learned Judge gets this proposition is also not know to this Court. In fact, a petition seeking interim maintenance has to be filed by the wife or the children under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and maintenance Act. If a divorce petition or any other petition contemplated under the Hindu Marriage Act is filed, then the interim maintenance can only be granted under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and if a decree is finally passed in that event the party who is entitled to claim maintenance can file a petition under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act. There is no provision in law enabling claiming maintenance under Section 151 CPC. Therefore the entire approach of the learned Counsels for both parties and the Judge is totally erroneous. This being a maintenance matter and the learned Judge had granted interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- to the 1st respondent and Rs.600/- to respondents 2 and 3, this Court does not wish to interfere with the impugned order. The petitioner herein is getting a sum of Rs.8,600/- p.m. Looking to the income of the petitioner herein the maintenance granted is adequate. Therefore, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs.