( 1 ) A dispute between the sister and brother was taken to a Court in a suit for partition instituted by the sister, along with an application under S. 151, cpc claiming interim maintenance. She said that her brother is in possession of the entire suit properties inclusive of seven shops fetching a rent of Rs. 1,200 and she has no other income for maintenance. She claimed interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300 per month. The application was resisted by the brother on the ground amongst others that it was not maintainable and the sister is well-to-do lady with enough property of her own to maintain herself. ( 2 ) THE trial Court after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, directed the brother to pay interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 100 per month. Challenging the validity of the said order, defendants 1 and 2 have preferred the revision petition. ( 3 ) MR. RAMACHANDRA, learned Counsel for the petitioners urged that in a suit for partition, the Court has no jurisdiction to grant interim maintenance. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Mulamani Sanna Basavarajappa v. Basavanappa, AIR 1959 Mys. 152-1958 myslj. 933. where somnath Iyer, J. , as he then was, following the decision of the High Court of Madras in Abdul Bahman v Tajunnisa Begaum, AIR 1953 Mad. 420 . observed that in a suit for partition the Court cannot award interim maintenance. The above decisions have been considered by a Bench of the High Court of Calcutta in Tarini Gupta Chowdhury v. S. M. Gouri Gupta Chowdhury, AIR 1968 Cal 567 . and were dissented from. Tn Chowdhury's case (3), the wife filed a suit for maintenance and she asked for interim maintenance. The Court held that the plea of the wife for interim maintenance cannot be denied when she has proved a prima facie case even though the defendant in the suit denied her relationship. Further observation at para 22 of the judgment reads :" Counsel for the respondent is, in my opinion, right in his contention that the court has jurisdiction to grant interim maintenance. Further observation at para 22 of the judgment reads :" Counsel for the respondent is, in my opinion, right in his contention that the court has jurisdiction to grant interim maintenance. The power of the Court is derived from the provisions of the statute: the power of the Court flows from the general provisions of Hindu law; tho power of the Court is invoked by the institution of a suit; the power of the Court is exercised by finding that there is a prima facie case which entitles the plaintiff to interim relief. "the above observation has been followed in a recent decision of this court in K. Shankare Gowda v. S. Bharathi, AIR 1975 Kar. 17 = (1975) 1 Karlj. 87 . wherein the present learned chief Justice has observed as follows :" I am in respectful agreement with the ratio of the decision of the high Court of Calcutta. In Mulla's Commentary on Hindu Law, 14th edn by S. T. Desai, at page 1017, it has been stated that if a prima facie case is made out, the Court can, in a case falling under S. 18 of the hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, grant interim relief the jurisdiction of the Court does not depend upon the acceptance or denial of the relationship or the right by the husband. The decision in Tarini gupta's case ( AIR 1968 Cal 567 ), has been relied upon by the learned author. In the instant case, the fact that the respondent is the wife of the petitioner is undisputed and therefore, there is a prima facie case to be answered. When there is a prima facie case, the Court below was right in awarding interim maintenance. " ( 4 ) THE suit concerned in Chowdhury's case (3) and also in Shankare gowda's case (4) was a suit for maintenance and not for partition. On this difference, Mr. Ramachandra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the principles stated in the said decisions are not attracted to the case on hand. He said that in a suit for partition the right to claim a share by the plaintiff has to be decided and until that right is adjudicated, no party to the suit could ask for a portion of the income of the suit properties as maintenance and the Court has no jurisdiction to award it. He said that in a suit for partition the right to claim a share by the plaintiff has to be decided and until that right is adjudicated, no party to the suit could ask for a portion of the income of the suit properties as maintenance and the Court has no jurisdiction to award it. ( 5 ) IN my view, it is not necessary to express any opionion on the contention. Assuming that in a suit for partition, the Court cannot grant interim maintenance to a person who is not entitled to it under the general law, nothing prevents the Court to make interim arrangement of the income of the suit property, provided that a prima facie case is made out by the party for claiming a share thereof and the circumstances of the parties demand and justify such interim arrangement. What is meant by prima facie case has been stated by Lord Evershed M. R. in Auten v. Rayner, 1958 3 All. E. R. 566, 568. According to the learned Judge, by a prima facie case is meant no more than a case which calls for an answer. ( 6 ) ON this view of the matter there is no difficulty for me to sustain the order of the trial Court. The trial Court has stated that the plaintiff claims 1/3rd share in the suit property, and defendant 1 has not denied the relationship of the parties or the collection of rent from the suit properties. Defendant 1 is collecting about Rs. 1,200 per month. Considering the income and the position of the plaintiff, the order made by the trial Court directing defendant 1 to pay Rs. 100 per month to the plaintiff, appears to be reasonable and just and I see no gcod reason to disturb the said order. It is needless to state that this interim arrangement like all other interim orders is provisional and always subject to the final order to be made in the suit. It is open to the Court to make suitable orders to re-adjust the rights of the parties in the event of the plaintiff becoming successful or unsuccessful in the suit. ( 7 ) IN the result, the petition fails and is dismissed. I make no order as to costs. --- *** --- .