Physical Address

304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124

A Muslim woman who has filed for divorce under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act, 1939 can be granted interim maintenance till a court decides on her petition, the Madras High Court has held.
Justice V Lakshminarayan, in his order on September 2, said that although the 1939 law does not provide for granting interim maintenance, courts can order such relief under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 151 says that courts have the inherent power to pass orders that may be needed to secure the ends of justice.
“A Court cannot shut its eyes, when the wife pleads before it that she is unable to maintain herself,” the judge said.
The High Court was hearing the petition of a man against the order of a family judge directing him to pay interim maintenance of Rs 20,000 per month and Rs 10,000 as litigation expenses to his estranged wife. The man contended that Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure could not be invoked to direct interim maintenance to be paid, as it only provided for procedural and not substantive relief.
Justice Lakshminarayan, however, did not accept this argument. He said that if the contention of the man’s counsel were to be accepted, then “the wife would be thrown to the wolves and would have to run from pillar to post in order to secure a basic right which is the right to live with decency and dignity”.
The court said that the purpose behind granting interim maintenance was so that the wife could “survive and fight the litigation”, and that the intention was to make the “litigative playing field equal”.
The woman told the court that she had lost her job, and that she incurred monthly expenses of Rs 50,000 on herself and her child. She said that her husband was a consulting pediatric cardiologist, and was also an assistant professor who earned a large salary. She argued that in view of this, he was capable of paying interim maintenance.
The High Court held that the family judge’s order was not “arbitrary or capricious” and dismissed the man’s petition against it.

en_USEnglish