Civil Revision No. 4161 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4161 of 2011 Date of Decision: 12.07.2011 *** Amar Nath & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. Kiran Bajaj & Ors. .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present:- Mr. Dhiraj Chawla, Advocate for the petitioners. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The instant revision petition has been filed against order dated 27.5.2011 by dint of which the petitioners have been directed to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- to respondent No.1 and Rs.1000/- each to respondents No.2 to 4 as interim maintenance, in a petition filed under Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. Respondent No.1 is widow daughter-in-law and respondents No.2 to 4 are grandsons respectively of petitioner No.1 while petitioners No.2 to 4 are the sons of petitioner No.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners has laid much stress that the deceased Rajinder Kumar, husband of respondent No.1, during his life time withdrew his share from the coparcenary property and hence, respondents are not entitled to get any maintenance from the petitioners and has referred to certain documents in this regard. He has further argued that the respondents have sufficient means to maintain themselves and hence, the petitioners are under no legal obligation to pay the interim maintenance to the respondents. Whatever has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioners, has to be appreciated only on the basis of evidence led by the parties, as has been rightly held by the Court below. At this juncture, when there is no dispute between the relationship inter se the parties, it cannot be said that three is any illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by Civil Revision No. 4161 of 2011 2 the Court below. However, to ensure that in case the respondents are not succeeded in the suit, it is directed that respondent No.1, who is going to receive the amount of interim maintenance for herself and on behalf of her minor sons, shall furnish indemnity bonds before the Court below thereby giving an undertaking to refund the amount of interim maintenance, so received by her for herself as well as for minor sons, to the petitioners, in case of her failure in the suit. Further, the learned trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit preferably within a period of six months. Keeping in view the circumstances mentioned above, this petition is being disposed of without issuing any notice to the opposite party. If respondents are summoned to contest this litigation, they will have to incur huge expenses to defend this case. However, liberty is granted to the respondents that if they feel dissatisfied with this order, they may move an application to recall the same. (ARVIND KUMAR) July 12, 2011 JUDGE Jiten