Judgment :- 1. These two second appeals arise out of proceedings initiated by the appellant under S 7 of the Madras Marumakkathayam Act for the dissolution of marriage between himself and the respondent. Proceedings by way of an original petition were instituted prior to the repeal of the Madras Marumakkathayam Act by the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act 1975 (Kerala Act 30 of 1976). Dissolution was ordered by the trial court on 29-6-1977. During the pendency of the proceedings before the trial court, the respondent wife filed two applications I. A Nos. 855 of 1977 under S.10A and I. A. 856 of 1977 under S.10B of the Madras Marumakkathayam Act for maintenance pendente lite and expenses of litigation and also for permanent alimony so long as the wife remains unmarried. The trial court ordered Rs. 75/- per mensem for maintenance pendente lite; Rs. 75/- for expenses of the proceedings and Rs. 75/- per mensem as permanent alimony. This order of the trial court was confirmed in appeal by the lower appellate court. 2. In these second appeals learned Counsel Sri P. N. K. Achan, submits that the proceedings under S.10A and 10B of the Madras Marumakkathayam Act are not maintainable for the reason that the applications I. A. Nos! 855 of 1977 and 856 of 1977 were instituted after the repeal of the Madras Marumakkathayam Act by Kerala Act30of 1976. Act 30 of 1976 came into force on 1-12-1976. At the time when the Act came into force the proceedings for the dissolution of the marriage between the appellant and the respondent were pending and it was in the pending proceedings that these interlocutory applications were filed for reliefs under S.10A and 10B of the Madras Marumakkathayam Act after its repeal by Act 30 of 1976. It is clear from S.10A that an application for relief thereunder is to be filed in the pending proceedings for dissolution of marriage between the parties. Jurisdiction to order permanent alimony and maintenance is conferred by S.10B on the Court exercising jurisdiction under Chapter II of the Madras Marumakkathayam Act. S.7 to 9 relating to the proceedings for dissolution of marriage are in Chapter II. Therefore a court exercising jurisdiction for the dissolution of marriage under Chapter II of the Act has jurisdiction to pass an order under S.10B granting permanent alimony and maintenance. 3. S.7 to 9 relating to the proceedings for dissolution of marriage are in Chapter II. Therefore a court exercising jurisdiction for the dissolution of marriage under Chapter II of the Act has jurisdiction to pass an order under S.10B granting permanent alimony and maintenance. 3. A Division Bench of this Court in the decision in Gopalakrishnan Nair v. Sarasamma (1979 KLT. 810) stated thus at page 815: "8. To us it seems to be beyond doubt that by reason of S.29 (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act the right to obtain dissolution under the Nair Act continues to be operative. The scope of the right has already been, as we have observed, defined by the Full Bench as including not only the right to avail of the grounds but also the procedure. If so, when the Nair Act was repealed and the repealing Act did not indicate any intention to the contrary S.4 of the Interpretation and General Clauses Act operated to keep alive the petitions which had been filed under the Nair Act. They will have to be continued as if the Nair Act continued to be in force for the purpose." In view of the decision of the Division Bench, there cannot be any doubt that the interlocutory applications for reliefs under S.10A and 10B in the pending proceedings under S.7 of the Madras Marumakkathayam Act are maintainable and those applications should also be disposed of as if the repealed Madras Marumakkathayam Act continued to be in force and applied to the pending proceedings. 4. It is next contended that the quantum of maintenance ordered by the courts below is excessive. It is pointed out that both the petitioner and the respondent are teachers and both are earning income by way of salary. The courts below have taken into consideration the relative position in life of the parties to the proceedings. The quantum of maintenance is fixed taking into account also the expenses that the respondent is obliged to incur for the nursing and treatment of an invalid child. The expenses for the maintenance of the child are not however taken into account in fixing the quantum of maintenance to be paid to the respondent. I do not see any valid ground to interfere with the quantum of maintenance ordered by the courts below. Both the second appeals fail and are dismissed. No costs. Dismissed.