Report No. 136
4.11.4. How to resolve the conflict?-
It would be anomalous and unjust to interpret the identical provision of the aforesaid -Central Act as conferring jurisdiction on the matrimonial court to gram maintenance at the time of passing a decree refusing the substantive relief claimed by the petitioner in one State and to so interpret it that the court has no such power in another State. A statutory clarification is, therefore, necessary in order to bring about uniformity in the administration of law in this area throughout the territory of India to which the Act is applicable.
In the considered opinion of the Commission, the conflict requires to be resolved by accepting the view propounded by the Andhra Pradesh High Court and by the Bombay High Court in its two decisions of 1987 and 1989, namely, the view that the court exercising jurisdiction under the Act is empowered to grant maintenance even whilst refusing the substantive relief claimed by the petitioner and dismissing his or her petition. The Commission has formed this opinion for the reasons articulated hereinafter.