( 1 ) THE respondent is the wife of the petitioner. She brought a suit against her husband in OS. 388 of 1973 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff. Chintamani for maintenance. In that suit, the defendant-husband raised various contentions. He did not dispute that the plaintiff is his wife. In the suit, the plaintiff filed IA. III for making an order granting interim maintenance. The learned Munsiff, after hearing the parties, made an order to the effect that the petitioner shall pay interim maintenance to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 75 per month from the date of the suit. It is against the said order that this revision petition is directed. ( 2 ) IT Was urged by Sri M. S. Gopal, learned Counsel for the petitioner that in a suit for recovery of maintenance the Court has no jurisdiction to order interim maintenance. In support of that contention he relied on the decisions in Abdul Rahman v. Tajunnisa Begum AIR. 1953 Mad. 420 and Appanna v. Seethamma AIR. 1972 AP. 62. . Both the decisions are Divn Bench decisions. In the madras case (l) Venkatarama Aiyar, J. . while delivering the judgment on behalf of the Bench, stated that the CPC confers certain powers on the court to grant relief in interim proceedings, such as, for example, power to issue injunctions, attachment before judgments or appointment of rpceivers but apart from such powers, there is no inherent jurisdiction in Courts to grant interim relief which properly ought to be granted only by the decree after determination of the points in controversy therefore, in a suit for maintenance by the wife where the claim is holly contested, an order for payment of interim maintonanco is without jurisdiction. To the same effect is the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court (2 ). ( 3 ) FOR the respondent, Miss Pramila, learned Counsel for the wife, sought support from the judgment of the High Court of Calcutta, in tarini Gupta v. Couri Gupta AIR. 1988 Cal. 567 where A N. Ray, J. , as he then was, dissented from the view taken by the High Court of Madras and held that the right of a wife to claim maintenance flows from S. 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and maintenance Act, and that it is not a right under any section of the CPC. 1988 Cal. 567 where A N. Ray, J. , as he then was, dissented from the view taken by the High Court of Madras and held that the right of a wife to claim maintenance flows from S. 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and maintenance Act, and that it is not a right under any section of the CPC. The learned Judge, in para 15 of the judgment said Ubi jus ubi remedium; where there is a right there must be a remedy; the right flows from S. 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act if there is a general right under the statute to claim maintenance, it follows that also during the pendency of the suit the wife has a right to claim maintenance; the right of maintenance is there because she is the wife; secondly, the right to claim maintenance is being asserted in the suit and thirdly, there is a right to claim maintenance till the suit is determined and followed by a decree. ( 4 ) IF there is a prima facie case, the Court can pass orders for interim maintenance. What is meant by prima facie case, has been laid down by Lord evershed, Master of the Rolls, in auten v. Rayker (1958) 3 All. E. R. 568 at568. . Lord Evershed has stated that a case which calls for an answer is a prima facie case. With great respect I am unable to agree with the view taken by the high Courts of Madras and Andhra Pradesh. 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 (3) has been relied upon by the learned auther. 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. upon the acceptance or denial of the relationship or the right by the husband. the decision in Tarini Gupta's case (3) has been relied upon by the learned auther. 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. ( 5 ) WHEN there is a prima facie case the Court below was right in awarding interim maintenance. Therefore the first objection raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner fails. The second ground is that the Court below has awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 75 p. m. and that the petitioner, according to him, is a salesman in a cloth shop getting a salary of Rs. 65. Miss Pramila learned counsel for the wife, drew my attention to the fact that the husband was entitled to about 10 acres of agricultural land and he has released his right in the said land in favour of his father. It apparently looks to me that the release deed was executed in order to deny the wife of her maintenance. The maintenance awarded is a paltry sum of Rs. 75p. m. , which, in these hard days, will be barely sufficient to maintain a human being. The husband is bound to maintain his wife. I cannot also believe that if he is employed as a salesman, he would be working for a salary of Rs. 65 p. m. The order made by the Court below is a just order and if I interfere with such an order, it will be doling injustice. Therefore, this revision petition fails and is dismissed with costs. --- *** --- .