JUDGMENT: 1. The appellant herein is the respondent and respondent herein is the petitioner before the lower Court in I.A.No.22 of 1988 in I.D.D.P.No.100 of 1987. 2. The respondent herein, who is the petitioner before the lower court filed a petition in I.A.No.22 of 1988 in I.D.D.P.No. 100 of 1987 under Sec.36 of the Indian Divorce Act claiming a sum of Rs.2,000 per month towards interim alimony pendente lite from the appellant/respondent. According to the petitioner, she is the wife of the respondent. Their marriage took place on 19.6.1985 at the C.S.I. Home Church, Nagercoil. On 1.8.1986 the respondent took her from Nagercoil to Trivandrum and left her in her parents house. Thereafter he did not return to her nor did he take her. Presently the respondent has filed the application seeking divorce alleging that the petitioner is a lunatic or a person having an unsound mind. It is not true to say so. She has no income or source of income to maintain herself. The respondent is getting an income of not less than Rs.20,000 per month and he is employed as a Doctor in Libya. He is having bank accounts with huge amounts to his credit. He has got extensive immovable properties yielding substantial income. The re-spondent/retitioner requires an amount of Rs.2,200 per month to lead a life in keeping with the status of her husband. Besides she required money to defend herself in the proceedings. She is not suffering from any mental sickness and she is perfectly all right. Hence, the petition. 3. The appellant herein, who is the respondent before the lower court filed a counter-statement raising the following contentions: The petitioner is a chronic schizophreni patient even before 1981. As such she has to be represented by a guardian ad litem. The marriage has been brought by fraud and deceit. She is not fit for conjugal life. She has got properties given to her as sreedhana gift. The contract of the respondent with Liyan Government expired on 17.7.1988. He has no huge amounts at the bank. He has only Rs. 15,000 and odd at Indian Overseas Bank, Vettoorni madam branch. The claim for Rs.2,000 per month is fantastic Mental Infirmity being disputed, the matter has to be adjudicated first. This petition for interim alimony cannot be considered before that is done. Even if alimony is payable, it cannot exceed Rs.300 per month. He has only Rs. 15,000 and odd at Indian Overseas Bank, Vettoorni madam branch. The claim for Rs.2,000 per month is fantastic Mental Infirmity being disputed, the matter has to be adjudicated first. This petition for interim alimony cannot be considered before that is done. Even if alimony is payable, it cannot exceed Rs.300 per month. His employment is Libya was extended for a further period of one year from 19.7.1988. However he resigned the job and left Libya on 31.12.1988. Presently he has no job. With a view to better his prospects he wants to join post-graduate course at Madras. The petitioner is under the care and protection of her parents and grand parents. They are well employed in Trivandrum. She is the only daughter of her parents. She has got valuable jewellery. 4. On the above pleadings and on the materials placed before him, the learned District Judge of Kanyakumari at Nagercoil came to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to get a sum of Rs.500 per month as interim maintenance from the respondent pending disposal of the main petition and accordingly allowed the petition directing the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.500 per month to the petitioner as interim maintenance from the date of petition till the disposal of the main petition. Aggrieved against the said findings the appellant/respondent filed this appeal in this Court. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the respondent the points that arise for determination on this appeal are as follows: (1) Whether the respondent herein, who is the petitioner in I.A.No.22 of 1988 in I.D.D.P.No. 100 of 1987 is entitled to claim interim maintenance before the disposal of the application for the appointment of guardian for her and if so, to what amounte (2) To what relief the appellant is entitlede 6. Point No. 1: The appellant therein is the husband of the respondent herein and their marriage is admitted. The appellant/husband has filed an application for divorce under Sec. 18 of the Act 4 of 1869 to pass a decree of nullity of marriage or divorce before the District Court, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil in O.P.No.100 of 1987 and the same is resisted by the respondent/wife. The appellant/husband has filed an application for divorce under Sec. 18 of the Act 4 of 1869 to pass a decree of nullity of marriage or divorce before the District Court, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil in O.P.No.100 of 1987 and the same is resisted by the respondent/wife. During the pendency of the petition in D.P.No.100 of 1987 for the relief of divorce, the appellant/husband filed an application in I.A.No.749 of 1987 to appoint a guardian for the respondent/wife and the same is also being contested. Thereafter, the respondent/wife filed the application in I.A.No.22 of 1988 in I.D.D.P.No.100 of 1987 claiming a sum of Rs.2,000 per month as alimony pendente lite from the date of petition till the date of final disposal of the main I.D.D.P.No.100 of 1987 and the same was contested by the appellant/husband by filing a counter affidavit as well as supplementary counter-affidavit, On the basis of htese affidavits and two documents filed by appellant under Exs.B-1 and B-2 the learned District Judge of Kanyakumari at Nagercoil came to the conclusion that the wife is entitled to get a sum of Rs.500 per month as interim maintenance from the appellant/ husband from the date of petition in I.A.No.22 of 1988 till the disposal of the main O.P.No.100 of 1987. The appellant/has preferred this appeal questioning the grant of interim maintenance on two grounds. The first ground of attack by the husband is that the question of lunacy of his wife must be considered first before over interim maintenance is ordered, and the affidavit filed by his wife is one filed by person who is of unsound mind, and she is not capable of filing any affidavit, and the learned District Judge failed to note that unless the procedure prescribed under O.32 , Rule 15 read with Rule 1 of C.P.C. is followed, the learned District Judge has no jurisdiction to proceed with the application in I.A.No.22 of 1988 and the order of the learned District Judge in I.A.No.22 of 1988 is without jurisdiction as the procedure laid down under O.32 , Rule 15 read with Rule 1 of C.P.C. has not been complied with. The learned counsel for the respondent/wife repudiated the above arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant/husband and contended that though the appellant has come to court on the ground of unsoundness of mind on the respondent/wife, the grant of interim maintenance cannot be negatived before ever the question of unsoundness of mind is decided under O.32 , Rule 15 read with Rule 1 of C.P.C. and the only ground urged for the dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce is unsoundness of mind, and in those circumstances, the order passed by the learned District Judge for grant of interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.500 per month is justified. 7. In support of the contention of the appellant the learned counsel relied upon the decision of a Division Bench of our Madras High Court reported in Rangaswami Reddy v. Gopalaswami Reddiar , (1978)2 MLJ. 564 wherein it was laid down as follows: “In this particular case, it is not the case of any one that the appellant was already adjudged to be a person of unsound mind. Consequently he is a person who had not been adjudged to be a person of unsound mind and therefore with reference to him the Court had to conduct an enquiry for the purpose of finding not whether, he is capable of protecting his interest when suing or being sued by reason of unsoundness of mind or mental infirmity.” As against the above decision the learned counsel for the respondent/wife placed reliance on two decisions. In the decision reported in Narayananadar v. Jayakodi Ammal Narayananadar v. Jayakodi Ammal Narayananadar v. Jayakodi Ammal , (1989)1 MLJ. 555 it was observed as follows: “In the context of the prevailing circumstances in our society, the payment of interim alimony and litigation expanses, pendente lite to a spouse, who is financially weaker than the other, with a view to enable him or her to conduct the proceedings in a matrimonial cause and secure speedy justice, should be regarded as a sine qua non of justice.” 8. In another decision reported in S.K.Khanna v. K.N.Khanna S.K.Khanna v. K.N.Khanna S.K.Khanna v. K.N.Khanna , A.I.R. 1978 Delhi 48 at page 52 and in para 13 it was held as follows: “A minor or a person of unsound mind is as much entitled to participate in the proceedings for the consideration of the petition on merits as also of the basic question if the petition, as laid, is maintainable.” 9. Applying the above said legal principles to the facts of the present case it is significant to note that the only ground on which the appellant is seeking the decree of divorce is unsoundness of mind of the respondent/wife. This question looms large very much in the main D.P. itself and if it is decided in an interlocutory application for interim maintenance like the one before us, when the main D.P. itself will be disposed of and nothing will survive for consideration in the main petition in D.P.No.100 of 1997. O.32 , Rule 15 of C.P.C. says that Rules 1 to 14 except Rule 2-A shall apply to persons adjudged to be unsound mind and shall also apply to persons whom though not so adjudged, are found by the court on enquiry to be incapable of protecting their interest when suing or being sued. In the present case the respondent/ wife is not adjudged as a person of unsound mind before or during the pendency of the main O.P.No. 100 of 1987. Therefore the first part of Rule 15 will not apply to the facts of the present case. The second part says that Rules 1 to 14 shall apply to persons not adjudged but found by the court on enquiry to be incapable of protecting their interest when being sued by reason of any mental infirmity. The fact that the respondent/wife has filed an affidavit claiming interim maintenance before the trial court as well as the affidavit before the High Court for depositing the arrears of interim maintenance like the application in C.M.P.No.8685 of 1992 will go to show that the respondent/wife prima facie is capable of protecting her own interest when being sued in this petition for divorce in I.D.No. 100 of 1987. Therefore in my view there need not be a full-fledged enquiry as contemplated in the second part of Rule 15 of O.32 of Civil Procedure Code. Therefore in my view there need not be a full-fledged enquiry as contemplated in the second part of Rule 15 of O.32 of Civil Procedure Code. It will suffice to find as to whether the respondent/wife prima facie is capable or incapable of protecting her own interest for claiming interim maintenance. If we go into the merits of the case as to whether the respondent/wife is of unsound mind or not then the very purpose of the main I.D.D.P.No.100 of 1987 will be defeated. In those circumstances, I am of the view that notwithstanding the petition filed by the appellant/husband to appoint a guardian for the respondent/wife on the alleged ground of unsoundness of mind, the respondent/wife is entitled to claim interim maintenance on the basis that she is prima facie capable of protecting her own interest when being sued by her husband for a decree for divorce. 10. One another ground that was urged on behalf of the appellant was that the learned District Judge failed to note that the respondent/wife is able to maintain herself as she is possessed of valuable jewellery for her own use and she is under the protection of her parents, who possessed extraordinary wealth, and the learned District Judge failed to note that the appellant/husband is without job as his contract in Libya to work as a Doctor expired long ago as early as on 31.12.1988, and the appellant/husband left Libya on 31.12.1988, and he is in India without any job, and therefore the fixation of a sum of Rs.500 per month towards interim maintenance is not only unjust but cause great hardship to the appellant/husband. Merely because the parents of the respondent/ wife or the respondent herself were having considerable properties, it cannot be a ground to negative the claim of interim maintenance to the respondent/ wife payable by the appellant/husband. There is no material on record to show that the respondent/wife herein was possessed of valuable jewellery and properties, and her parents are having considerable extent of properties both movable and immovable. It is the admitted case of the appellant/husband that he is living away with the respondent/wife from the year 1986 onwards. What ever may be the reason for their separate living, the appellant/husband is bound to maintain his wife, who is the respondent herein during the pendency of the main petition for divorce in I.D.O.P.No.100 of 1987. It is the admitted case of the appellant/husband that he is living away with the respondent/wife from the year 1986 onwards. What ever may be the reason for their separate living, the appellant/husband is bound to maintain his wife, who is the respondent herein during the pendency of the main petition for divorce in I.D.O.P.No.100 of 1987. As a matter of fact, he stated in para 15 of his counter statement that any alimony payable cannot exceed Rs.300 per month. It is not in dispute that the appellant is a Doctor by profession, it may be that his services as a Doctor in Libya were terminated in the month of December, 1988. But it cannot be said that the appellant in incapable of earning any income in India as a Doctor, Considering the position and status of both the parties in this case, the reasonable wants of the respondent/wife herein, separate living of both the parties from the year 1986 and the earning of the appellant/husband as a Doctor in his profession in India and the only person to be maintained by the appellant is his wife, it is just and reasonable that a sum of Rs.500 per month is ordered to be paid by the appellant/husband to the respondent/wife as interim maintenance from the date of application in I.A.No.22 of 1988 in I.D.O.P.No.100 of 1987 till the disposal of the main I.D.O.P.No.100 of 1987 and consequently I answer this point as against the appellant/husband and in favour of the respondent/wife. 11. Point No. 2: In view of my finding on the earlier point I am to hold that the appeal is devoid of merits, and the same has to be dismissed with costs, and the fair and final order dated 10.4.1989 made in I.A.No.22 of 1988 in I.D.O.P.No.100 of 1987 on the file of District Judge of Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil are confirmed, and consequently I answer this point in favour of the respondent/wife and as against the appellant/husband. 12. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs. The fair and final order dated 10.4.1989 made in I.A.No.22 of 1988 in I.D.D.P.No. 100 of 1987 on the file of District Judge of Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.