Source: Madras High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Madras High Court in the matter of ABC v. XYZ has held that Muslim women have the right to claim interim maintenance under section 151 of Code of Civil procedure, 1908 (CPC) who has filed for divorce under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act, 1939 (DMM). 

What was the Background of the ABC v. XYZ Case? 

• In the present case, the petitioner is the husband, and the respondent is the wife. 
• The respondent left the petitioner as he used to treat her unfairly and used to physically and verbally assault him. 
  • Later she again came back to the petitioner when he assured her that he will not repeat the same again. 
• The petitioner after some time again abused her and their daughter. It was in the form of physical, verbal, emotional and economical abuse. He said he will take their daughter with him back to his hometown for which the respondent denied, which enraged the husband, who beat her black and blue and took the daughter away to Belgaum. 
• The respondent suffered at the hands of the husband, she decided to initiate proceedings under Section 2(viii) of the DMM Act. 
• The respondent filed the case for maintenance against the petitioner as she had no means to earn as she lost her job and is middle of financial crises while her husband earns a handsome salary, and she also wanted maintenance for her daughter’s education. 
• The petitioner denied all the allegations and stated that it was the respondent who used to slap the petitioner and abuse him. 
• The case was presented before the Trial Court and the court awarded maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month so as to enable the wife/respondent to live with dignity and comfort and granted Rs.10,000/- as litigation costs. 
• Aggrieved by the decision the present revision petition was filed by the petitioner/husband before the Madras High court. 
• The petition was filed to challenge the applicability of Section 151 of the CPC by the Trial court in granting interim maintenance to the respondent. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Madras High Court stated that when the relationship between the parties is admitted and based on the merits of the case the court may grant maintenance to the wife and children on prima facie satisfaction of the court empowered under Section 151 of CPC. 
  • The Court relied on the case of Hajee Mahomed Abdul Rahman v. Tajunnissa Begum and Anr (1952). 
• The High Court further added that the purpose of granting maintenance is to provide equal opportunities to both the parties. 
  • If the court does not possess such power, it would be against justice, equity and good conscience. 
• The Madras High Court also noted that it is the duty of the husband to maintain the daughter and the wife as per pristine Islamic law as well as, under DMM Act. 
• The High Court also pointed out Section 2 (ii) of the DMM Act which states that a husband not maintaining his wife for a period of two years is a ground for divorce. 
• This entails that it is an obligation of the husband to maintain his wife. 
• The Madras High Court also added that as per Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 the wife can claim several reliefs. 
• Based on the above observations the Madras High Court rejected the present petition and confirmed the order of the Trail court. 

What is Section 151 of CPC? 

About: 

• This section delas with the inherent power of the High Court. 
• It entails the provision regarding the power of the high court to overcome the difficulties arising out of the procedural rules. 
• This power is to be exercised by the court when  no explicit provision is provided. 

Applicability of Section 151 of CPC:  

• The court must use the inherent power to provide equity, justice and good conscience. 
• When no alternate remedy is left then court may invoke the power inherited under section 151 of CPC. 
• The section does not provide any substantial right to the parties but merely aids to overcome the procedural disparities that arose during the course of justice. 

Section 151 of CPC:  

• It states saving of inherent powers of Court. — 
  • Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. 

Case Laws based on Section 151 of CPC: 

• Hajee Mahomed Abdul Rahman v. Tajunnissa Begum and Anr (1952): 
  • In this case it was held that when the relationship between the parties is admitted, the Court has the inherent power to grant interim maintenance. 
• Savitri v. Govind Singh Rawat (1985): 
  • The Court in this case held that whenever anything is required to be done by law and it is found impossible to do that thing unless something not authorized in expressed terms be also done, then that something else will be supplied by necessary intendment. 
• Ram Chand v. Kanhayalal (1966): 
  • The Supreme Court held that the inherent powers under Section 151 of CPC can also be exercised to prevent the abuse of the process of court. 
• Mahendra Manilal Nanavati v. Sushila (1965):  
  • The Supreme Court while expressing its view on the nature of inherent powers of the court, observed that CPC is a special piece of legislation to deal with procedural situations of proceeding of trials of civil nature. 
  • Under the Code itself, some hidden powers are conformed on the courts according to the emerging situations during the proceedings and courts can exercise them in absence of expressed provisions.  
  • Where there are express provisions in the Code, the Courts are barred from invoking such powers. 
• Abdul Rahim Attar v. Atul Ambalal Barot (2005):  
  • The court held that inherent powers cannot be used to nullify the expressed provision provided under any statute.