ORDER
B. Seshasayana Reddy, J.
1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the Order dated 27-7-2004 passed in I.A.No. 162 of 2001 in O.P.No. 790 of 2003 on the file of the District Judge, Vizianagaram, whereby the learned District Judge refused to grant interim alimony.
2. The petitioner is the wife of the respondent. The respondent herein filed O.P.No. 790 of 2003 for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 32 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (for short ‘the Act’). The petitioner/wife filed I.A.No. 162 of 2001 under Section 36 of the Act for grant of interim alimony at the rate of Rs. 1,000/-(rupees one thousand only) per month and legal expenses of Rs. 2,000/- (rupees two thousand only) pending the main proceedings. The respondent/husband filed counter resisting the application. It is averred in the counter that the petitioner filed M.C.No. 2 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vizianagaram, claiming maintenance and the same was ended in dismissal on 25-2-2004, and therefore the petitioner/wife is not entitled for interim alimony pending disposal of the main proceedings in O.P.No. 790 of 2003.
3. The learned District Judge on considering the material brought on record and on hearing both parties, refused to pass any Order with regard to interim alimony and directed both the parties to get ready for disposal of the main petition. The operative portion of the Order passed by the learned District Judge, Vizianagaram, reads thus:
“Perused the record. The respondent stated that the petitioner resided only for two months after marriage and that subsequently, she never, obliged to lead conjugal life with him. He further stated that the petitioner resorted to filing of some petition or other against the petitioner. He stated that the Maintenance Case was dismissed on merits. He further stated that this is a case where the facts and circumstances have to be appreciated on merits. He prayed to dismiss the petition. Having gone through the respective contentions of both parties and hearing the learned counsel, I feel that the material available on record is not sufficient to come to a just decision in either way. Added to this, the learned Advocate for the respondent expressed his readiness for disposal of the main petition on merits. In view of the above attendant circumstances and background of the case, I feel that justice will be done to both parties by taking up the main O.P. itself. In view of the above, I direct both the parties to get ready for disposal of the main petition. Call this petition along with main petition.
In the result, the petition is ordered to be called along with main Divorce Petition, Both the parties are directed to get ready for disposal of main divorce petition.”
4. Assailing the Order passed in I.A.No. 162 of 2001 in O.P.No. 790 of 2003, the petitioner/wife filed this Civil Revision Petition.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/wife contends that the Order of the learned District Judge, Vizianagaram, to tag on the application filed by the petitioner/wife claiming interim maintenance and legal expenses to the main proceedings is against the provisions of Section 36 of the Act and therefore the impugned Order is required to be set aside.
6. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the decision of Kerala High Court in E.C. Benny v. Raichel Bindu, AIR 1999 Kerala 251 and the decision of the Delhi High Court in Mrs. Alice Baldev Singh v. Baldev Singh, I (2002) DMC 357.
7. In the first cited decision, the Kerala High Court held that under Section 36 of the Act, right is given to a wife to file an application for alimony pendente lite ‘in any suit’ under the Act. The proviso to Section 36 makes it very clear that such an application is maintainable even in a petition filed under Sections 18 and 19. The proviso further provides that the alimony granted under Section 36 shall continue in case of a decree for dissolution of marriage or of nullity of marriage until the decree is made absolute or is confirmed, as the case may be. It is therefore very clear that even in an application under Sections 18 and 19 seeking a declaration that the marriage is null and void, alimony pendente lite can be granted. A decree for nullity of marriage has to be confirmed by the High Court as per the provisions of Section 20. The alimony granted pendente lite will continue until the decree is confirmed. Therefore, it could be held that an application under Section 36 is maintainable at the instance of the wife in a petition filed by a husband under Sections 18 and 19 of the Act.
8. In the second cited decision, the Delhi High Court held that pendente lite alimony may be varied, enhanced, reduced or even suspended during pendency of suit or during period when such Order remains in operation, depending upon the change in the factors which are counted for determination of pendente lite alimony.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband submits that the petitioner-wife is not entitled to claim any interim alimony pending disposal of the main proceedings since her claim to grant maintenance has been negatived by the competent Court in M.C.No. 2 of 2003.
10. As seen from the main order, the learned Judge has not disposed of the application filed by the petitioner/wife claiming interim alimony pending main proceedings, but ordered to call along with the main petition. Of course, it can be seen from the Order as to what made the learned Judge to pass such an order, probably, the learned Judge was under the impression that the petitioner wife was not entitled to claim alimony in view of the finding recorded by the competent Court in M.C. No. 2 of 2003.
11. At this juncture I may refer Section 36 of the Act which reads thus:
“In any suit under this Act, whether it is instituted by a husband or a wife, and whether or not she has obtained an Order of protection, the wife may present a petition for expenses of the proceedings and alimony pending the suit.
Such petition shall be served on the husband; and the Court, on being satisfied of the truth of the statements therein contained, may make such Order on the husband for payment to the wife of the expenses of the proceedings and alimony pending the suit as it may deem just.
12. The object of the petition is very clear that it is made for granting some relief to the petitioner/wife pending the main proceedings. Directing the application claiming interim alimony to be tagged on with the main petition is opposed to the object of Section 36 of the Act.
13. The learned Judge has to dispose of the application filed by the petitioner-wife, either this way or that way and he cannot tag on the application seeking interim alimony along with the main proceedings.
14. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the Order dated 27-7-2004 passed in I.A.No. 162 of 2001 in O.P.No. 790 of 2003, and remanding the matter back to trial Court for fresh disposal. The learned District Judge, Vizianagaram is directed to dispose of the I.A.No. 162 of 2001 in O.P.No. 790 of 2003 on merits.