Deepak Gupta, J.

1. This first appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act is directed against the order of the District Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur purported to have been passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act whereby he has awarded maintenance at the rate of 700/ - per month in favour of the wife Smt. Khampa Devi.

2. The brief facts necessary for decision of the case are that Khampa Devi (respondent) is married to Roshal Lal (Petitioner). She filed a petition for grant of maintenance in the Court of District Judge Kinnaur at Rampur Bushehr. This petition was filed as a pauper application under Section 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. During the course of these proceedings, she filed another petition under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act claiming interim maintenance. On this maintenance petition, the impugned order has been passed whereby the husband has been directed to pay Rs. 700/- per month as maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses of Rs. 1,000/-. This appeal is by the husband.

3. I have heard Shri O.P. Sharma, learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Ms. Ritta Goswami, Counsel for the respondent.

4. The main contention of Shri O.P. Sharma is that the District Judge had no jurisdiction to pass any order under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act since no proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act were pending before him. He further submits that even the original petition was not maintainable before the District Judge and the same should have been filed before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) concerned.

Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act reads as follows:

24. Maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings.-Where in any proceeding under this Act it appears to the Court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife or the husband, or the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding, and monthly during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioners own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the Court to be reasonable.

5. A bare perusal of this provision shows that a petition under Section 18 will lie only if there are certain proceedings pending under the Hindu Marriage Act. In case there are no proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act, the Court will have no jurisdiction to pass an order. Section 24 is a part of the Hindu Marriage Act and provides for interim relief to either spouse during the pendency of the Hindu Marriage Act. It specifically provides that where in any proceedings under the the Court is of the opinion that a spouse has no independent income sufficient for her or his support then maintenance pendente lite can be awarded. This Section clearly pre-supposes the pendency of proceeding under the Hindu Marriage Act. In the present case, no proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act were pending and, therefore, no order could have been passed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

6. Ms. Ritta Goswami learned Counsel for the respondent-wife relied upon a judgment of the Bombay High Court in Vinod Kumar Kerjriwal v. Usha Vnod Kerjriwal : AIR1993Bom160 , and submits that expression "proceedings under the" should not be given a narrow meaning. I find that this judgment is not at all applicable to the present case. In that case, the proceedings had been filed under the Hindu Marriage Act. The husband filed the petition at Mathura and the wife filed a petition at Bombay. The Supreme Court directed that both the petitions should be heard at Bombay. The petitions were dismissed in default and it was during the pendency of the restoration application that the proceedings under Section 24 were filed. It is in this context that it was held that the proceedings under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act can be initiated during the pendency of the application under Order 9 Rule 13 or Order 9 Rule 9 CPC. In my opinion, this authority cannot be read to mean that even in the absence of any proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act the petition under Section 24 is maintainable.

7. However, if the Court had the power to grant interim maintenance under general law then the mere fact that a petition under Section 24 was filed would not be a sufficient ground to set aside the order. It is well settled law that if a Court has jurisdiction to pass an order but merely invokes the wrong provisions of law while passing the order that by itself is not a sufficient reason to set aside the order.

8. The Patna High Court in Baliram Ram v. Radhika Devi and Ors. AIR 1980 Pat 87, has held that even in the absence of any specific provision for grant of maintenance under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, the Court can grant such maintenance. Similar view has been taken by the High Court of Orissa in Somanath Jena v. Smt. Sabitri Jena and Anr. : AIR1987Ori251 . Once the Court has the jurisdiction to grant the main relief, it will have the jurisdiction to pass orders for grant of interim relief. In cases like the present where the wife is claiming maintenance, it would be just and proper to hold that the Court has the jurisdiction to pass interim maintenance. This view has been taken by the Madras, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh High Courts. All the Courts have taken the view that if there is a general right under the statute to claim maintenance it follows that during the pendency of the suit the wife has the right to claim interim maintenance. The learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence led before, it has awarded Rs. 700/- per month. The husband is a welder and is able-bodied man. Therefore, the interim maintenance appears to be just and reasonable and calls for no interference.

9. In the present case, the Counsel as well as the Court proceeded under the assumption that a petition under Section 24 was maintainable. In fact, I find that nobody has gone into the question as to where the pauper petition should have been filed. The pauper application was filed in relation to proceedings under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. Section 18 of theprovides that a wife is entitled to maintenance. The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 does not prescribe a specific forum for filing of the petition under the said Act. Therefore, a petition has to be filed before the Court having the jurisdiction to entertain such claim under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure Code.

10. Section 7(2) of the Court-fees Act, 1870 provides that in suits for maintenance and annuities, the value of the suit for, the purposes of Court-fee shall be deemed to be 10 times the amount claimed to be payable for one year. In the present case, the wife claimed maintenance at the rate of 200/- per month or Rs. 2,400/- per annum. Therefore, the value of the suit for the purposes of Court-fee would be Rs. 2,40,000/-. This is the valuation of the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction also in accordance with the provisions of Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act. It has been pointed out to me that at the time when the petition was filed i.e. 7.10.2004, the Court of Senior Sub Judge and Sub Judge exercising the jurisdiction for suits valued up to Rs. 2 lacs only. The petition was rightly filed before the District Judge. However, thereafter the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Judges (Senior Division) has been increased to Rs. 5 lacs.

11. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is dismissed. The record called for by this Court is ordered to be returned to the learned District Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr so as to reach their well before the date fixed. The parties are directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr on 7.3.2006 and the learned District Judge is directed to decide the same in accordance with law. In case, according to him, the Civil Judge has the jurisdiction to hear the matter, he shall transfer the same to the Civil Judge concerned having the pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction for disposal in accordance with law.