C.R.No.5253 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.5253 of 2009 Date of Decision : 14.09.2009 Sheo Narain ...Petitioner Versus Sunita and others ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. Sachin Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by the learned District Judge, Family Court, Gurgaon, on 19.8.2009, whereby an application for release of the land of the petitioner from attachment, was dismissed. The respondent, wife of the son of the present petitioner was awarded maintenance vide order dated 15.11.1999. Since, the amount of maintenance was not paid, the land of the petitioner was attached. The petitioner moved an application for releasing the attached land, which has been declined vide the order impugned in the present revision petition. The sole argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has no legal duty to maintain his daughter- in-law. Therefore, the land of the petitioner cannot be attached and sold in execution of the order for recovery of maintenance. In Balbir Kaur Vs. Harinder Kaur 2003(1) RCR (Civil) 624, while considering Section 19 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenace Act, 1956, it has been held that father-in-law is bound to maintain his C.R.No.5253 of 2009 2 daughter-in-law. In view of the said judgment, I do not find that the petitioner can avoid the non-payment of maintenance, when the husband of the respondent is a proclaimed offender and is not maintaining the respondent-wife. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned District Judge, Family Court, which may warrant interference by this Court in the present revision petition. Dismissed. 14.09.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE