IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 23.12.2010 C.R.No.8408 of 2010 (O&M) Gajjan Singh ...Petitioner Versus Simerdeep Kaur ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : Mr. H.R.Nohria, Advocate, for the petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) Challenge in the present revision petition is to an order passed by the learned trial Court on 14.08.2010, whereby Rs.2000/- was awarded as interim maintenance in the proceedings under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. The learned trial Court has found that the petitioner is owner in possession of 1/3rd share of land measuring 27 Bighas 18 Biswas and is also keeping buffaloes, therefore, awarded Rs.2000/- per month as ad interim maintenance. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the amount of maintenance is highly excessive, as the petitioner is not possessed of sufficient means. The learned trial Court has examined the means of income of the petitioner and that of the respondent and returned a finding that the petitioner is possessed of sufficient means of income and consequently, awarded ad interim maintenance of Rs.2000/- per month. C.R.No.8408 of 2010 (O&M) Such amount of maintenance cannot be said to be illegal, unwarranted or untenable. It may be noticed that the petitioner has filed an appeal against the order passed by the learned trial Court on 14.08.2010. The said appeal was dismissed on 09.10.2010. The learned trial Court has granted ad interim maintenance in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. An order granting ad interim maintenance is not appealable under any provisions of Order 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, the petitioner could not have been filed appeal, which led to an order passed by the learned first Appellate Court on 09.10.2010. A copy of this order be sent to Mr. K.C.Gupta, Addl. District Judge, Barnala, for his comments, as to how he entertained the appeal against the order passed by the learned trial Court granting ad interim maintenance. In view of the above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned trial Court granting ad interim maintenance. Dismissed. 23.12.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE 2