A-42 % 30.8.2011 Present: Mr.K.P.Mavi, Advocate for the petitioner. +CM No.16220/2011 (for exemption) in CM(M) No.1010/2011 * Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions. CM(M) No.1010/2011 & CM No.l6219/2011(for stay) The order impugned is the order dated 12.7.2011 vide which the application filed by the plaintiff seeking permission of the Court to examine three witnesses details of which have been mentioned in para 3 of his apphcation, had been dismissed. Present suit is a suit for maintenance; a separate residence has been claimed under Section 18(2) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. Submission is that in terms of Section 18(2)(d) the defendant has got married again to a person by the name of Kanchan; this provision entitles the plaintiff wife to a separate residence. This has specifically been mentioned in the plaint wherein it has been contended that the defendant had got married a second time to Kanchan and a child has also been borne from the said wedlock. In the written statement this contention was denied. It is not in dispute that initially a list of witnesses has been filed along with the suit. In para 5 the plaintiff has asserted that the name of some other witnesses whose details are not known may be Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified summoned by moving appropriate application at the relevant time. The present application has been filed in the month of April 2011 and by way this application three witnesses are now sought be summoned by the plaintiff; the first two are the parents of Kanchan and third is the second wife Kanchan herself. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that earlier the details of Kanchan and her parents were not known; the addresses and the details of the said persons have now been learnt. The impugned order had rejected this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the relevancy of the witnesses has not been established; this is an infirmity. Contention of the plaintiff as is evident from the pleadings is that the defendant has got married a second time to Kanchan; the aforenoted witnesses namely Kanchan and her parents would be relevant to resolve this controversy. The next date before the trial court is 30.8.2011. The plaintiff is granted permission to summon the aforenoted three witnesses; the said witnesses will be produced at his own cost and responsibility; no unnecessary adjornment shall be given by the trial court. Petitionis disposedofin the abo|re^t^Hns. INDERMEET KAUR, J. AUGUST 30, 2011 nandan