JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - In this Civil Revision by the Defendant grant of interim maintenance to his wife in a suit for maintenance by her is assailed. 2. There is no dispute in this case that the Plaintiff is the wife of the Defendant-Petitioner and they are governed under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. Mr. U.C. Panda, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Court has no Jurisdiction to pass an interim order for maintenance in a suit for maintenance, since the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act which gives the right to the wife for maintenance does not provide for interim maintenance similar to provision in Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Besides, the Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit and as such there is no scope for granting interim maintenance. 3. It has been observed by a Division Bench of this Court reported in Ramchandra Behera and Ors. v. Smt. Snehalata Dei 1976 C W. R. 939. ....As the question of jurisdiction or no jurisdiction is dependent upon a set of faces, and the Court at Cuttack proceeded to entertain the suit on the footing that it had jurisdiction, until by clear proof the allegation of want of jurisdiction is established, it must be held that the Court at Cut tack had jurisdiction to entertain the two earlier litigations... 4. In view of the aforesaid observation, the order cannot be held to be vitiated on account of want of territorial jurisdiction which would be a matter to be decided in the suit itself on the facts to be established. As regards the second question the Division Bench also decided the question of inherent power to grant interim relief. Approving the decision reported in K. Venkataratnam Vs. Kakinda Kamala which relied upon Hajee Mahomed Abdul Rahman Vs. Tajunnissa Begum and Another it was held: ...We agree that there may be cases where taking the extraordinary aspects into consideration, the Court may proceed to exercise inherent powers to grant interim relief.... We are inclined to agree with the ratio indicated by the Madras High Court in the case reported in Hajee Mahomed Abdul Rahman Vs. Tajunnissa Begum and Another as laying down the ordinary rules. We agree that there may be cases where taking the extraordinary aspects into exercise inherent powers to grant interim relief. We are inclined to agree with the ratio indicated by the Madras High Court in the case reported in Hajee Mahomed Abdul Rahman Vs. Tajunnissa Begum and Another as laying down the ordinary rules. We agree that there may be cases where taking the extraordinary aspects into exercise inherent powers to grant interim relief. It is not appropriate to set limitations on Court's inherent powers by indicating circumstances where it can be and where it cannot be exercised "... In the case before us, there is a decree started against the Plaintiff and the marital relationship has been judicially terminated. The burden lies on the Plaintiff to extricate herself from the bar of res-judicata by proving want of territorial jurisdiction of the Court passing the earlier decree and by establishing perpetration of fraud in the matter of obtaining the decree. Until she is able to establish these, the decree of divorce binds her and she cannot be taken any longer to be a wife. We find that the husband has already married. In this setting it would not at all be appropriate to sustain the order of grant of interim maintenance. The Division Bench, has thus laid down that the Court in which a suit for maintenance by a wife is pending has inherent power to grant interim relief of maintenance, although the Division Bench vacated the order on account of the fact that at the time of considering the application, there was no relationship of husband and wife. In the decisions of this Court reported in Gajapati v. Dukhanashini, Subash v. Maluni, Jadumani v. Kumudini and Krushna Chandra Nanda v. Manorama Devi, this principle has been accepted. In view of the settled position of this Court, the question is no longer open to be considered by me. 3. Excepting claiming that the wife has deserted him, the Defendant-Petitioner has not made out a case for not granting maintenance when it is the legal obligation of the husband to maintain his wife. Whether the case would come within the exceptions of grant of maintenance as provided in Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, would be considered in trial of the suit which has been filed for enforcement of a right u/s 18 (1) of the aforesaid Act, which of course, is subject to Sub-sections (2) and (3) thereof. 6. 6. I am not able to find any infirmity in the order to interfere in this revision. In the result, the Civil Revision is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Final Result : Dismissed