JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The Instant petition stands directed against the impugned order recorded by the learned trial Court, on 21.05.2014, upon an application standing preferred there before under Sections 18, 23 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, whereby, he granted relief of interim maintenance quantified in a sum of Rs.1000/- per mensem qua plaintiff/applicant No.1 besides also quantified interim maintenance of Rs.1000/- per mensem qua plaintiff No.2/applicant No.2. 2. A perusal of the plaint constituted before the learned trial Court underscores qua in the plaintiffs/applicants espousing therein, the apposite relief, theirs drawing leverage from the provisions engrafted in Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. 3. Per se, the plaint constituted against the defendant in the apposite civil suit, holds an apparent synonimity vis-a-vis the statutory provisions whereunder the applicants/ plaintiffs, anvilled their apposite application qua award of interim maintenance vis-a-vis them. The statutory provisions whereunder, both the plaint as also the apposite application stood constituted also whereupon, the impugned rendition stood recorded by the learned trial Court, do not hold any mandate qua the learned trial Court holding any jurisdiction to grant any sum of money, as interim maintenance qua the plaintiffs/ applicants, thereupon, it was unbefitting for the learned trial Court, to proceed to accord the relief of interim maintenance upon an application constituted therebefore under statutory provisions holding alikeness with the statutory provisions whereunder the plaintiffs instituted a suit against the defendant. The underlying object of the legislature, in omitting to, engraft in the relevant statutory provisions, any apt provision for grant of interim maintenance, appears to stand engendered by the Civil Court standing thereupon forestalled to render a decision upon the plaint, ultimate decision whereon, may, with the defendant adducing evidence of vigorous sinew, be adversarial vis-a-vis the plaintiff, whereupon, the plaintiffs would prematurely besides at an inchoate stage hence stand unjustly enriched also would lead to the obviable fate of the defendants standing driven to seek refund of amounts awarded to the plaintiffs as interim maintenance, besides any decision upon an application for interim maintenance may also present a fait accompli to the Civil Court significantly when on completion of trial of the suit, it proceeds to render an adjudication thereupon. 4. 4. Dehors the above, a perusal of the impugned order recorded by the learned trial Court unveils qua the imminent reason prevailing upon it, standing anchored upon the pleadings respectively constituted in the plaint besides in the written statement, each by the plaintiffs and the defendant, also it stands gauged from the relevant record qua the learned trial Court proceeding to impute validation to the pleadings in the plaint despite the apposite issues thereupon standing struck subsequent to its proceeding to record the impugned order, thereupon in the learned trial Court proceeding to analyze the worth of the contentious respective pleadings of the respective contestants also its imputing sanctity to the pleadings constituted in the plaint, whereas, it dispelling the sanctity of the pleadings constituted in the written statement, despite no evidence standing adduced therebefore thereon, at the relevant stage, by either of the contesting parties, is a per se deprecatory exercise resorted to, by the learned trial Court. Even otherwise, with the application aforesaid, for the reasons aforestated being mis-constituted therebefore also with the relief asked therein being analogous to the relief claimed by the plaintiff in the main suit, thereupon, also the impugned order stands ingrained with an inherent vice, emanating from the learned trial Court committing a gross illegality and impropriety comprised in its untenably deciding the claim in the suit, without asking for adduction of relevant evidence thereupon by the defendant, evidence whereof may ultimately constrain it to dismiss the suit, thereupon, the plaintiff would stand untenably/inchoately enriched also the defendant would be driven to launch obviable restitutory recovery proceedings for the recovery of the amount awarded as interim maintenance besides thereupon the aforesaid underlying object of the legislature in not clothing the Civil Court with jurisdiction to grant any ad interim maintenance amount would suffer frustration. Consequently, the instant petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial of the suit within one year from today. However, it is made clear that any observations made hereinabove shall have no bearings on the merits of the case. Records be sent back forthwith. All pending applications also stand disposed of.