JUDGMENT
T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.
1. This revision petition is filed against the order of Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Dhuri granting interim maintenance to the respondents who are the wife and daughter of the petitioner.
2. The respondents filed the suit in forma pauperis for maintenance under Section 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. During the pendency of the application for permission to sue as an indigent person the respondents filed the application for grant of interim maintenance. The Trial Court granted maintenance to the wife @ Rs. 400/- and to the second respondent-daughter of the petitioner @ Rs. 300/- per month. Aggrieved by the same, this revision petition has been filed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Court has no power to grant interim maintenance during the pendency of an application to permit the plaintiffs-applicants to file the suit as an indigent person. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decision of this Court in Saudagar Singh v. Smt. Harbhajan Kaur and Ors., (1977)79 P.L.R. 506, wherein the Hon’ble Chief Justice of this Court held that the Act does not authorise the passing of any order for the payment of litigation expenses and maintenance allowance pendente lite. The learned Counsel further relied upon the decision of another learned Single Judge of this Court in Dr. Devinder Singh v. Harminder Kaur, A.I.R. 1984 P&H 40, in which it was held that the interim maintenance cannot be, granted to the wife while her application to sue her husband in forma pauperis for maintenance is still pending. He also relied upon a decision of another learned Single Judge of this Court in Makhan Singh v. Jagdish Kaur and Ors., 1992 Civil Court Cases 29, wherein it has been held that interim maintenance cannot be granted. I am unable to agree with the above views expressed by Hon’ble the Chief Justice and learned Single Judges of this Court. The Calcutta High Court in Tarini Gupta v. Gouri Gupta, A.I.R. 1968 Cal. 567, and in Nemal Chand v. Smt. Lila Jain, A.I.R. 1968 Cal. 405 held that the Court had the power to grant interim maintenance under Section 18 of the Act. In Indra Mal v. Babu Lal, A.I.R. 1977 Raj. 160, it was observed that the power to grant maintenance is implicit and ancillary to the power to entertain a suit for maintenance and the Court has power to grant interim maintenance under Section 18 of the Act. It has been held by the Karnataka High Court in K. Shankare Gowda v. Smt. S. Bharathi, A.I.R. 1975 Knt. 17, if there is a general right to claim maintenance under the statute and where the relationship is not disputed, the power to grant interim maintenance flows from the statute itself. It has also been held by the Delhi High Court in Gian Devi v. Amar Nath, I.L.R. 1975 (1) Delhi 811 that where a petition is filed to permit the wife to sue in forma pauperis for maintenance during the pendency of that petition also, interim maintenance can be granted. It is no doubt true that a learned Single Judge of this Court in Makhan Singh v. Jagdish Kaur and Ors., 1992 C.C.C. 29 referred to a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Gorevelli Appanna v. Gorivelli Seethamma, A.I.R. 1972 A.P. 02, wherein it has been held that Section 18 of the Act does not authorise the award of interim maintenance pending decision on the claim to maintenance. That decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court was dissented by the same High Court in Adigarla Simhachalam v. Adigarla Pappamma, A.I.R. 1973 A.P. 31 holding that even during the pendency of the proceedings instituted by the wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, she-can claim interim maintenance.
4. A Single Judge of this Court in Sukhdev Singh and Ors. v. Sham Kaur and Anr., (1972)74 P.L.R. 850, held that the Court can grant interim maintenance during the pendency of the suit under Section 18 of the Act. A Division Bench of this Court in Puran Singh and Ors. v. Mst. Har Kaur and Anr., 1972 C.L.J. 648 held that it cannot be said that the order of trial Court granting maintenance is without jurisdiction. Thus the decision of the Division Bench of this Court is binding on me. Therefore, the decisions rendered by the Single Judges of this Court in Dr. Devinder Singh’s case (supra) and Makhan Singh’s case (supra) are contrary to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court. I am bound by the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court.
5. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no interim maintenance can be granted during the pendency of the application for permission to file the suit as an indigent person. This can never be disputed nor doubted that once the permission is granted, the filing of the suit will relate back to the date of presentation of the application for permission to file the suit as an indigent person and not on the date when the application is numbered and registered as a suit. In this connection, reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme court in Jugal Kishore v. Dhanno Devi, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 2560. The doctrine of maintenance to the wife sprang from her matrimonial tie and obligates the husband to maintain his wife during his life time regardless of his possessing any property. Such moral obligation has made a legal liability since it arose under the very nature of relationship that existed between the Hindu male members and depends. It can be enforced even against the heirs of the Hindu deceased in whose possession the assets of the deceased have been.
6. The plaintiffs filed the suit as indigent persons claiming that they have no means even to pay the Court fee. It will take some time for the Court to decide the application. It is not the intention of the Legislation that the plaintiff who filed the suit claiming maintenance should be made to starve during the pendency of the application. The provisions relating to maintenance are benevolent provisions. They have to be interpreted in favour of the beneficiaries. As already observed, the liability to maintain the wife and children arises because of matrimonial tie and subsistence of the marriage between the parties. If it is held that no maintenance can be granted during the pendency of the application, it will deprive the right to life of the applicant as envisaged by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. I am, therefore, unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no order granting maintenance can be passed during, the pendency of the application for permission to file the suit as an indigent person.
7. In this view of the matter, I do not find any ground warranting interference with the order of the trial Court granting interim maintenance to the plaintiff-applicants.
8. The revision petition, therefore, fails and is accordingly, dismissed.