JUDGMENT - DHABE H.W., J.: - A short but an interesting question has arisen for consideration in this revision petition. The question is whether in a suit filed by the husband for restitution of conjugal rights his wife can claim interim maintenance during the pendency of the said suit. Admittedly the parties are governed by Mahomedan Law. 2. The learned trial Court by its order dated 3-3-1984 directed the plaintiff/husband to pay an interim maintenance allowance of Rs. 125/- per month to his defendant/wife during the pendency of the suit. It is not in dispute that the defendant/wife has also filed an application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure claiming maintenance from her husband. Since the plaintiff/husband is aggrieved by the offer of the trial Court granting interim maintenance to his defendant/wife he has preferred the instant revision against the same in this Court. 3. The learned Counsel for the applicant has urged that there is no right of an interim maintenance provided under the Mahomedan Law unlike section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. He has further urged that there is no power to the Civil Court to grant interim maintenance under any of the provisions of the Code including its inherent powers under section 161 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is, however, urged on behalf of the non-applicant/wife that under its inherent powers under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure the Civil Court has jurisdiction to grant interim maintenance during the pendency of the suit in the interest of justice. 4. In support of the rival contention the parties have relied upon certain decisions which, however, admittedly do not directly deal with the issue in this case. Before examining the decisions relied upon by the parties, it would be useful to examine the rights of the wife under the Mahomedan Law in regard to maintenance. It is not in dispute that under Mahomedan Law the marriage is a contract and not a sacrament. Articles 277 and 278 of Mulla's Principles on Mahomedan Law (18th Ed. edited by M. Hidayatullah) deal with the principles of Mohamedan Law relating to maintenance of wives. The above articles are reproduced below for the sake of convenience:- “277. Husband's duty to maintain his wife. Articles 277 and 278 of Mulla's Principles on Mahomedan Law (18th Ed. edited by M. Hidayatullah) deal with the principles of Mohamedan Law relating to maintenance of wives. The above articles are reproduced below for the sake of convenience:- “277. Husband's duty to maintain his wife. - The husband is bound to maintain his wife (unless she is too young for matrimonial intercourse), so long as she is faithful to him and obeys his reasonable orders. But he is not bound to maintain a wife who refuses herself to him, or is otherwise disobedient, unless the refusal or disobedience is justified by non-payment of promp (section 290) dower, or she leaves the husband's house on account of his cruelty. 278. Order for maintenance. - If the husband neglects or refuses to maintain his wife without any lawful cause, the wife may sue him for maintenance, but she is not entitled to a decree for past maintenance, unless the claim is based on a specific agreement. Or, she may apply for an order of maintenance under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908, section 488, in which case the Court may order the husband to make a monthly allowance in the whole for her maintenance not exceeding five hundred rupees.” It is clear from reading Article 277 that the husband is bound to maintain his wife so long as he is faithful to him and obeys his reasonable orders. As per Article 278 if the husband neglects or refuses to maintain his wife without any lawful came, the wife can sue him for maintenance but she is not entitled to a decree for past maintenance unless the claim is based on a specific agreement. It is also open to her to apply for maintenance under the old section 488 and the present section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is clear from reading Article 278 that during the subsistence of marriage it is open to the wife to sue for maintenance if her husband neglects or refuses to maintain her. Although it is not relevant in this case, it is clear from Article 279 that after divorce the wife is entitled to maintenance during the period of Iddat. 5. Although it is not relevant in this case, it is clear from Article 279 that after divorce the wife is entitled to maintenance during the period of Iddat. 5. It would be clear from reading Article 278 reproduced above that the right to sue for maintenance is given to the wife under the Mahomedan Law only if her husband neglects or refuses to maintain her without any lawful cause. Why I am emphasising this aspect is because under the Hindu Law before or after its codification in section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act the wife by her status as such had a right of being maintained by her husband which in other words was her vested or substantive right. However, under the Mahomedan Law there is no such vested or substantive right of maintenance which is clear from the fact that the wife can get maintenance only on determination of the circumstances mentioned in Article 278 by the competent Court and also from the fact that the Court is not entitled to pass any decree for past maintenance unless there is an agreement between the parties to that effect. 6. With this background I may proceed to examine the cases which are relied upon by the parties before me. The learned Counsel for the wife has relief upon the cases of Calcutta High Court, viz. (Smt. Gouri Gupta Choudhury v. Tarani Gupta Chaudhaury)1, A.I.R. 1968 Cal. 305, (Nemi Chand Jain v. Smt. Lila Jain)2, A.I.R. 1968 Cal. 405 and (Tarini Gupta Choudhari v. Smt. Gouri Gupta Choudhary)3, A.I.R. 1968 Cal. 567. He has also relied upon the decision of the Mysore High Court in (Ramappa Parappa Khot and others v. Courawwa)4, A.I.R. 1968 Mys. 270. However, he heavily relies upon the decision of this Court reported in (Sushilabai Chhotelal Gupta v. Ramcharan Hanumanprasad Vaishya and another)5, 1976 Mh.L.J. 82. 7. So far as the Calcutta High Court cases are concerned the suit for maintenance was filed by the wife relying upon section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. In the said suit a relief for interim maintenance was claimed by the wife against her husband. 7. So far as the Calcutta High Court cases are concerned the suit for maintenance was filed by the wife relying upon section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. In the said suit a relief for interim maintenance was claimed by the wife against her husband. The Calcutta High Court has taken the view that since the wife had a substantive right of maintenance under section 18 of the above Act she was entitled to a relief of interim maintenance upon the prima facie case being established by her. It is clear from the decision of the case in Tarini Gupta Chowdhury v. Smt. Gouri Gupta Chowdhury, A.I.R. 1968 Cal. 567 that according to the Calcutta High Court the power to grant interim relief of maintenance flows from the right of the petitioner to get maintenance under section 18 of the above Act itself and not from section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code. 8. In Ramappa Parappa v. Gourwwa, A.I.R. 1968 Mys. 270 the wife challenged the gift-deeds made by her husband in favour of his relatives. As wife, she claimed interim relief of maintenance during the pendency of the suit which was granted by the Court. In the decision of this Court in Sushilabai v. Ramcharan, 1976 Mh.L.J. 82 the plaintiff therein filed a suit for partition and separate possession and in the said suit interim relief for maintenance was claimed in favour of the plaintiff as well as the defendant No. 2. Relying upon the inherent power of the Court under section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code this Court granted interim relief of maintenance to the plaintiff and the defendant No. 2 in the said case. 9. The learned Counsel for the applicant has relied upon the decision of the Madras High Court in (Mohamed Abdul Rahman v. Tajunnissa Begam and another)6, A.I.R. 1953 Mad. 420 and of the Orissa High Court in (Ramchandra Behara and others v. Smt. Snehalata Dai)7, A.I.R. 1977 Orissa 96 to show that even in a suit for maintenance based upon section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act the Civil Court has no power to grant interim relief of maintenance during the pendency of the suit in exercise of its power under section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code. Thee two decisions have taken the view which is contrary to the view taken by the Calcutta High Court. 10. However, the learned Counsel for the non-applicant/wife has brought to my notice a recent decision of this Court in the case of (Madhika Akand v. Smt. Bhima Akhand and others)8, A.I.R. 1983 Bom. 480 in which this Court has held that the right to grant interim relief in a suit for maintenance flows from the substantive right in sections 18 and 20 themselves of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act and, if not, section 151 can be called in aid to translate that right into practice to give the actual relief. This Court further held that the power to grant such a relief is incidental and ancillary to the power to grant final maintenance both under sections 18 and 20. It was also held that where the principal power or the main right to grant relief is conferred upon the Court or upon an authority, such Court or an authority has also powers to grant those and such reliefs which are incidental to the main relief. It is thus clear from the decision of this Court, cited supra, that in a suit for maintenance based upon section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act the Civil Court has power to grant interim relief of maintenance. Apart from the controversy as regards the grant of interim relief of maintenance in a suit for maintenance, the real controversy in this case is whether in a suit for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the husband in interim relief of maintenance can be granted to the wife. This is not the question dealt with in the above decisions. 11. To show that the interim relief for maintenance can be granted in a proceeding instituted by a husband for restitution of conjugal rights the learned Counsel for the wife has submitted before me that in the case reported in Sushilabai v. Ramcharan, 1976 Mh.L.J. 82 this Court has granted interim maintenance in a suit for partition and separate possession. It is, therefore, urged that even if the nature of the suit is different in the sense that the principal relief claimed in the suit is not for maintenance still in the interest of justice this Court can under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure grant interim relief for maintenance. It is, therefore, urged that even if the nature of the suit is different in the sense that the principal relief claimed in the suit is not for maintenance still in the interest of justice this Court can under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure grant interim relief for maintenance. I do not think that the analogy drawn by the learned Counsel for the wife regarding the facts in the aforesaid decision and the facts in the instant case is apt. In a suit for partition and separate possession the plaintiff and the defendant have a right as co-owners in the property to be partitioned. The wife or widow is also entitled to be maintained out of the joint family property. The relief granted in such suit is in favour of both the plaintiff and the defendant insofar as their separate shares are determined in such suit in which each is entitled to his or her share in the joint family property. The further important thing to be observed in the said decision is that it was not in dispute in the said case that there was a joint family property and that the plaintiff had an interest in that property. It is in the context of the above facts and circumstances that the inherent power of the Court under section 151 Civil Procedure Code was invoked to grant interim maintenance to the plaintiff as well as to the defendant No. 2 in the said suit. In the other decision cited supra (A.I.R. 1968 Mys. 270) relied upon on behalf of the non-applicant wife, the wife had interest in the property and, therefore, in the gifts being declared void. It was, therefore, open to her to claim interim maintenance or any allowance during the pendency of the suit in view of her interest in the property in question. 12. However, the claim in the instant case is different. The plaintiff/husband sues the wife for restitution of conjugal rights on the ground that she has deprived him of cohabitation without any reasonable or probable cause. The defence raised by the wife is that she was driven out by the husband and that she was ill-treated by him. 12. However, the claim in the instant case is different. The plaintiff/husband sues the wife for restitution of conjugal rights on the ground that she has deprived him of cohabitation without any reasonable or probable cause. The defence raised by the wife is that she was driven out by the husband and that she was ill-treated by him. As I have already pointed out under the Mahomedan Law the right conferred upon the wife is to sue for maintenance and unless she establishes that her husband has neglected her or refused to maintain her without any reasonable cause she is not entitled to a decree for maintenance. Further it has to be seen that she is not entitled at all to a decree for past maintenance, unless the claim is based on a specific agreement. All these things have to be proved in a suit properly filed for maintenance by the wife. Unless these are proved under the Mahomedan Law a wife is not entitled to maintenance. It is open to doubt whether the wife governed by Mahomedan Law would be entitled to interim maintenance unlike under the Hindu Law even in a suit for maintenance itself. Here in the instant case she is a respondent in a suit for restitution of conjugal right. Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is a special provision made in the said Act where in any proceedings under the said Act the petitioner is entitled to claim interim maintenance from the respondent. In my view the same right cannot be carved out by reference to section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code in regard to the matrimonial cases which are not covered by section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 13. The learned Counsel for the non-applicant/wife has also relied upon the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of (Apia Begam v. Md. Istafs)9, A.I.R. 1933 All. 634. It was a cas in which the Mahomedan husband had filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. The Allahabad High Court held that since the marriage was a contract under the Mahomedan Law the principles of specific performance of contract applied to the same. Istafs)9, A.I.R. 1933 All. 634. It was a cas in which the Mahomedan husband had filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. The Allahabad High Court held that since the marriage was a contract under the Mahomedan Law the principles of specific performance of contract applied to the same. Further, it held that since to grant specific performance of contract or not is in the discretion of the Court it is open to the Court to impose certain conditions while granting decree for specific performance of contract. It, therefore, held that it was open to the Court while granting decree for restitution of conjugal rights to impose just conditions upon the husband. In that case, payment of dower was imposed by the lower Court as a condition upon the husband for passing decree for conjugal rights which was upheld by the High Court in the said case. The facts in the said case are entirely different. After finally adjudicating the rival claims at the time of passing the final decree the condition was imposed in that case. Here in the instant case as I had pointed out it is only after establishing her right to maintenance in a suit for maintenance that the wife is entitled to maintenance under Mahomedan Law which she cannot do in suit of different nature i.e. the suit for restitution of conjugal rights and that too not filed by her but by her husband to which she is the respondent. The above case has, therefore, no application to the facts in the instant case. 14. The main plank of the argument on behalf of the non-applicant is that the Civil Court has inherent power under section 151 of the Code to pass such order ex debito justice i.e. to do justice in the absence of any express provision in the Civil Procedure Code. The scope and ambit of the inherent powers of the Civil Court is well settled by several decisions. The power is exercised to do justice between the parties in the lis before the Court. It is well settled that the provisions of section 151 do not confer a substantive jurisdiction upon the Court. The scope and ambit of the inherent powers of the Civil Court is well settled by several decisions. The power is exercised to do justice between the parties in the lis before the Court. It is well settled that the provisions of section 151 do not confer a substantive jurisdiction upon the Court. I may refer to the decisions of the Supreme Court in (Pandam Sen and another v. The State of Uttar Pradesh)10, A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 218 and in (Raja Soap Factory and others v. S.P. Shantaraj and others)11, A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 1449 in this regard. 15. The question, therefore, in the instant case would be whether in aid of the lis before the Civil Court in the instant case it was necessary for the Civil Court in the interest of justice to exercise the power of granting interim relief under section 151 of Civil Procedure Code. In my view the nature of the suit for restitution of conjugal rights is different from the suit for maintenance which a Mahomadean wife is entitled to file under the Mahomedan Law. There is also remedy to the wife to claim maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which is fact the non-applicant/wife has resorted to. In view of the above facts and circumstances the learned Civil Court had no jurisdiction to grant any interim relief by way of interim maintenance pending the decision of this case. The order granting interim relief is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside. 16. In the result the revision is allowed. The impugned order of the learned trial Court granting interim relief of maintenance is set aside. However, in the interest of justice, there would be no order as to costs. Revision allowed. -----