Civil Revision No. 297 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 297 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 6.4.2010. Varinder Singh ....Petitioner Versus Jaspreet Kaur and another ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. Amit Rawal , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Narula, Advocate for the respondents. RAJESH BINDAL, J Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated August 19, 2009 passed by the learned Court below whereby the applications filed by the petitioner for bringing certain facts on record and also summoning the witness from ICICI Lombard Ltd. or for appointment of Local Commissioner were rejected. The applications were filed by the petitioner in the suit filed by the respondents seeking maintenance past and future. Along with the suit an application for permission to sue as an indigent person was also filed. It is during pendency of the application under Order 33 Rule 1 CPC seeking permission to sue as an indigent person that the respondents filed application seeking interim maintenance. During that period, the aforesaid applications were filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner though had raised an issue regarding consideration of application for interim relief during the pendency of the application filed under Order 33 Rule 1 CPC, permitting the respondents to proceed with the suit as an indigent person. However, at the time of arguments, the issue was not addressed, considering the law laid down by this Court in Balbir Kumar Vs. Anita Rani 2003(4) RCR (Civil) 642, Nikka Singh Vs. Amarjit Kaur minor and another (1991-1) 94 The Punjab Law Reporter 137 and Sukhminder Singh Vs. Baljeet Kaur 1999 (4) RCR (Civil) 652. He, however, submitted that for the purpose of decision of the application filed by the respondents for interim maintenance the facts sought to be brought on record by the petitioner by way of applications filed are required to be considered. In the application filed the material has been placed on record showing that infact respondent No.1 has sufficient means to pay the Court fee and also to maintain herself and the minor child. In one of the applications the information which has been sought to be produced on record is that presently respondent No.1 was working with ICICI Lombard Ltd. as Clerk/Manager, from Civil Revision No. 297 of 2010 (O&M) 2 where she is getting Rs. 30,000/- as salary. In fact this came to the knowledge of the petitioner after reply to the application for interim maintenance had been filed, hence could not be placed on record. In case, the aforesaid fact is considered by the Court below at the time of decision of the application for interim maintenance, the grouse raised by the petitioner would be satisfied. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in case any material is relevant for the purpose of decision of the application for interim maintenance he can bring the same before the Court and the Court will consider the same while considering its merits. The petitioner always has the liberty to amend his pleadings with the permission of Court. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, in my opinion, the ends of justice in the present case will be met in case the petitioner is permitted to amend the reply already filed by him to the application for grant of interim maintenance incorporating the fact which allegedly came to the knowledge of the petitioner after filing of reply initially. The same being employment of respondent No. 1 with ICICI Lombard Ltd. The amended reply to the application shall be handed over by the petitioner to counsel for respondents on or before April 15, 2010. As the reply to the application for maintenance is directed to be amended the respondent shall also be at liberty to file counter reply, copy of which may be supplied to counsel for the petitioner in the Court below on or before April 26, 2010. The case is stated to be fixed for April 26, 2010 before the Court below. Copy of the replies be got exchanged by the parties before the date fixed in the Court below which shall be filed in Court on 26.4.2010, on which date the learned Court below will consider the prayer of the respondents for grant of interim maintenance. The impugned order is modified to the extent mentioned above and the revision petition stands disposed of, accordingly. (RAJESH BINDAL) 6.4.2010. JUDGE Reema