Ramachandran Nair,J.
This original petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by an application in I.A No. 3803/2013 filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for grant of interim maintenance.
2. In spite of sending notice by special messenger and even though notice as accepted, there is no appearance for the respondent. Therefore, we proceeded to hear the learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. O.P No. 1443/2013 was filed by the respondent herein under Section 13(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The prayer is to pass a decree for divorce dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent on the ground of cruelty.
4. Ext.P1 is the copy of I.A No. 3803/13 filed by the petitioner and Ext.P2 is the counter affidavit filed by the respondent in the above Interlocutory Application.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the respondent wanted to take evidence in the matter, the petitioner has filed a proof affidavit, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P3.
6. The view taken in Ext.P4 is that the petitioner has not filed any counter to the main petition and he is always at liberty to file counter with counter-claim. Reserving the right of the petitioner to claim maintenance in the main original petition, the application was dismissed.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the claim for interim maintenance under Section 24 is independent of the main reliefs, which will have to be considered by the Family Court. He also relied upon the judgment of this Court in Raghavan v. Saroja, (1987(1) KLT 376).
8. Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 provides that:-
“ Where in any proceeding under this Act it appears to the court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife or the husband, order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding, and monthly during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioner's own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the court to be reasonable.”
It is also said in the proviso that:
“the application for the payment of the expenses of the proceeding and such monthly sum during the proceeding, shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of service of notice on the wife or the husband, as the case may be.”
9. Therefore, the question is whether the parties can be relegated to set up a claim along with the main petition rather than considering the Interlocutory Application independently. In Raghavan v. Saroja, (1987 (1) KLT 376), even in a case where the main petition was dismissed, the applicant was found entitled to maintenance till the date of the decision of the main petition. It was also held that notwithstanding the disposal of the main proceedings the Court should dispose of the petition under Section 24 on merits, if circumstance do require it. The court has power to do so. There are various other decisions taking the view that an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 will have to be considered independently.
In the light of the said statutory scheme, we are of the view that the order cannot be supported. Accordingly, Ext.P4 is set aside and there will be a direction to the Family Court to consider I.A 3803/14 on merits after hearing both sides and court will be free to take evidence also, and pass appropriate orders. No costs.
Sd/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge.
Sd/- P.V.ASHA, Judge.
True Copy P.A to Judge lsn