Judgment 1. The point for determination in this case is that if the claim for maintenance is admitted, can the Court pass an order for interim maintenance during the pendency of a partition suit ? 2. In the suit for partition brought by opposite party Nos. 1 and 2, claiming one-third share, they filed an application under Sec.151 and Order 40, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, for appointment of a Receiver or, in the alternative, to allow them some maintenance. In the written statement filed on behalf of the petitioners (defendants) the right to claim partition was denied, inter alia, on the ground that Ramsewak Singh, husband of Opposite Party No. 1, had died in the year 1935, and not in 1958, and that opposite party No. 1, Phulwa Devi had no right in the joint family properties, but she was entitled to maintenance. So far as opposite party No. 2 was concerned, it was stated that she was a married lady and had passed out of the family by reason of her marriage. In their rejoinder to the petition for appointment of Receiver, the petitioners denied the allegation made on behalf of the opposite party with regard to sale or mortgage of the property in suit as false and stated that no sufficient cause had been made out for appointment of a Receiver. They, however, did not state therein that opposite party No. 1 was not entitled to maintenance. 3. The Court below has refused to appoint a Receiver but has directed that out of the 22 bighas of land in dispute, survey plot No. 1624, having an area of 1.53 acres, be given for the maintenance of opposite party No. 1 till the disposal of the suit as, in its opinion, considering the large area involved, giving of 1.53 acres did not seem to be unjustified. The present application is directed against this order of the Court below. 4. The submission of learned Counsel for the petitioners is that there was no jurisdiction in the Court to pass an order for ad interim maintenance during the pendency of the partition suit. In support of his submission Counsel relied on the decision in Ramji Gir V/s. Elaichi Devi, ( AIR 1974 Pat 280 ) wherein it was laid down that an order for grant of maintenance could not be passed under the inherent powers. In support of his submission Counsel relied on the decision in Ramji Gir V/s. Elaichi Devi, ( AIR 1974 Pat 280 ) wherein it was laid down that an order for grant of maintenance could not be passed under the inherent powers. Reliance was also placed on the decision in Rambujhawan Pathak V/s. Gauri Kant Pathak, AIR 1972 Pat 376 . Both these decisions are of a single Judge of this Court. Counsel also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Padam Sen V/s. The State of Uttar Pradesh, ( AIR 1961 SC 218 ). In that case it was held that the Court had no inherent powers to appoint a Commissioner to seize the account books of the plaintiffs. The facts of this case have no bearing on the facts of the present case. In the case of Maharaj Kumar Gopal Saran Narayan Singh V/s. Site Debi, 5 Pat LT 560 = (AIR 1924 Pat 69) cited by learned counsel for the petitioners, it was held that if the claim based on a contract for payment of money is disputed the Court has no jurisdiction under Sec.151, Code of Civil Procedure, to order that the plaintiff be awarded a portion of the amount before her right is established in the suit brought for that purpose. In the instant case, however, the right to claim maintenance was admitted on behalf of the petitioners. 5. Learned Counsel for the opposite party, Mr. K.B. Verma, brought to my notice an order dated the 6th of March, 1965, passed in First Appeal No. 65 of 1964. That appeal arose out of a suit for partition which had been dismissed, but it was held by the Bench (consisting of Mahapatra and A. B.N. Sinha, JJ.) that appellant No. 1 would be entitled to maintenance as her husband had died prior to 1937. In the instant case, on the written statement and the show cause filed by the petitioners, the husband of opposite party No. 1 died in 1935. Perhaps, it was on account of this fact that there was no denial to the grant of maintenance in favour of opposite party No. 1 either in the written statement or in the rejoinder filed to the petition under Order 40, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure. Perhaps, it was on account of this fact that there was no denial to the grant of maintenance in favour of opposite party No. 1 either in the written statement or in the rejoinder filed to the petition under Order 40, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure. According to counsel for the opposite party, the law on the point is clearly laid down in Article 543 of the Principles of Hindu Law by Mulla (13th Edition). It is to the effect that the manager of a joint Mitakashara family is under a legal obligation to maintain all male members of the family, their wives and their children and that on the death of any one of the male members he is bound to maintain his widow and his children. Similar provision is to be found in Article 560-A (ibid) which is to the effect that a widow who has left the residence of her deceased husband, not for unchaste purposes, is entitled not only to maintenance but also to arrears of maintenance from the date of her leaving her husbands residence. 6. In my opinion, the law on the point as to whether during the pendency of a suit an order for ad interim maintenance can be passed is settled. If the right to maintenance is admitted, the Court can pass an ad interim order of maintenance during the pendency of a suit. It was held in Sri Rajah Yenumala Latchanna Dora V/s. Sri Rajah Yenumala Mallu Dora Varu, AIR 1941 Mad 55 that there was no inherent power in the Court to grant maintenance if the matter was asserted by the plaintiff and denied by the defendant and that an order for ad interim maintenance could only be passed where the allegation was admitted and that the wife was also entitled to separate maintenance. In the case of Tarini Gupta Chowdhury V/s. Sm. Gouri Gupta Chowdhury, AIR 1968 Cal 567 a Bench of the Calcutta High Court while considering Sec.18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, went so far as to hold that even if the matter was not covered by Sec.151, Code of Civil Procedure, an order for ad interim maintenance in a suit should be decided with reference to the general provisions of the Hindu Law and the provisions contained in the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. It was also held that a claim for maintenance in a pending suit would not be taken away by denial, i.e., if a claim for maintenance was denied that would not take away the jurisdiction of the Court to make interim orders in a suit for maintenance. The jurisdiction of the Court did not depend on the denial of a case by the defendant. It was one thing to say that the Court declined to make an order in a case where facts were disputed and quite another thing to say that the Court had no jurisdiction to make an order because the claim was contested. In the instant case, as already indicated, the right to maintenance has not been denied, rather it has been admitted. In the case of Bhubaneshwar Prasad Narain Sinha V/s. Rajeshwar Prasad Narain Sinha, AIR 1948 Pat 195 a Bench of this Court while deciding an appeal filed against the order of the Court below appointing a Receiver observed- "of course, it will be open", to the parties to apply to the Court below for such orders "as it thinks fit and proper for payment to the respective" families of such amounts by way of maintenance and other "expenses as the Court below may direct". By giving this direction, their Lordships accepted the principle that in a suit for partition the court has got a right, on proper application being made, to grant ad interim maintenance. In this view of the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court, the two single Judge decisions cited on behalf of the petitioners are of no avail to them. 7. On the facts to this case, therefore, I am not in a position to agree with learned Counsel for the petitioners that the order passed by the learned Sub-ordinate Judge for maintenance is without jurisdiction or tainted with illegality or material irregularity. The Court below was perfectly justified on the facts of the present case to protect the interest of opposite party No. 1 and to see that she is maintained during the pendency of the partition suit. 8. The result, therefore, is that the application fails and is dismissed. There will be no order for costs of this Court.