Short Note : 1. The revision is by the plaintiff against the order of the trial Court refusing to grant interim maintenance to him under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. It is well settled that during the pendency of a partition suit an order directing the payment of interim maintenance to the plaintiff can be made under section 151 of the Code, this is because the Karta of the family is supposed to maintain all the members of the family. This has been the view as stated in Domaji vs. Smt. Ubadrabai, 1967 MPLJ 104 following the decision of P.V. Dixit, C.J. in Bajirao and Others vs. Champalal, C.R. No. 473/1966, dated 29.8.1966. The same is the view taken in Naval vs. Banabai, 1971 MPLJ 49. However, the contention of the defendants that interim maintenance cannot be granted in any other suit cannot be accepted. There is no reason why if the plaintiff is prima-facie able to prove that the defendants have taken illegal possession of his lands and they are enjoying usufruct thereof, the defendants should not be directed to pay interim maintenance pending decision in the suit in case the Court is not inclined to appoint a Receiver for managing the suit properties. But in the present case the defendants have not only challenged the title of the plaintiff over the suit lands mentioned in schedule A but they have also disputed that they are in possession of the lands which were allotted to the plaintiff in the partition of 1973. The defendants in fact in their reply submitted that the plaintiff is fee to take possession of the lands which were allotted to his share and resume cultivation. It is pertinent to note that the plaintiff has not made any grievance so far that when he tried to take possession and resume cultivation, he has been obstructed by the defendants. The plaintiff has, therefore, to blame himself for his present position as nothing prevented him from taking possession of his lands and resuming cultivation. Because of his failure the defendants cannot be penalised for paying interim maintenance to the plaintiff. 1967 MPLJ 104 and 1971 MPLJ 49 relied on. Revision dismissed.