A prima facie claimant in a partition suit may receive interim maintenance from suit-property income.

Respondent No. 1 filed a partition suit claiming one-third of her deceased father’s one-eighth share in the suit properties.

During the suit, she sought maintenance of ₹20,000 per month from the petitioners and other respondents under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, asserting that she had no income and could not maintain herself.

The petitioners objected, including on the grounds that the application was not maintainable and that the properties generated no income.

The trial court allowed the application in part and ordered payment of ₹10,000 per month until disposal of the suit.

The petitioners challenged that order in this writ petition.

1. Whether the trial court could grant interim maintenance or make an interim arrangement concerning the suit properties’ income in the pending partition suit

2. Whether the trial court’s order directing payment of ₹10,000 per month warranted interference in writ jurisdiction

Section 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, was the provision invoked in the application for maintenance.

The court relied on Syed Hussein v. Rahmathabi and Another, 1975 (2) KLJ 182, for the principle that, in a partition suit, the court may make an interim arrangement from the income of the suit property where the claimant establishes a prima facie case to a share and the parties’ circumstances justify such relief; the arrangement remains provisional and subject to the final decision in the suit.

The High Court noted that respondent No. 1 had brought a partition suit and claimed entitlement to a share, while asserting that she had no independent source of income and could not maintain herself.

Applying Syed Hussein, it held that the pending partition suit did not prevent the trial court from arranging interim support from the suit-property income where a prima facie claim and the parties’ circumstances justified it.

The trial court had considered the cited precedent and the parties’ income, and the High Court found no basis to disturb its award.

Any pending applications in the writ petition were also disposed of.