In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 3177 of 2009 Date of decision: October 23, 2009 Bhagwan Singh .. Petitioner Vs. Jaspal Kaur and another .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Animesh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondents. A.N. Jindal, J The plaintiffs- respondents (herein referred as 'the respondents') having equipped with the order of maintenance against the petitioner- defendant (herein referred as 'the petitioner'), in order to secure the recovery of maintenance filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from alienating/transferring or otherwise disposing of the property in order to defeat their rights of maintenance. Both the courts below while deciding the application for ad-interim injunction restrained the petitioner from alienating his property during the pendency of the suit. Heard. Admittedly, the petitioner is the owner of the suit land and the respondents being his wife and daughter are seeking maintenance from the petitioner and the petitioner is bound to discharge his obligation by making payment of maintenance. It appears that both the courts below took wrong view of the fact that the respondents could seek injunction against the petitioner restraining him from alienating the property as the respondents having an orders of maintenance in their possession could enforce the same by way of execution and they had equal efficacious remedy to get the property attached or sold in execution of the order, however, they could not seek an injunction against the true owner regarding the property over which they had no right, title or interest. They could also file a separate suit under the Maintenance & Adoption Act, or under other appropriate provisions of law for creating charge over the property. The present suit for permanent Civil Revision No. 3177 of 2009 -2- *** injunction filed by the respondents being not maintainable, no injunction could be granted. Both the courts below fell in error while passing erroneous orders without taking into consideration the settled principles of law. Consequently, I accept the revision petition, set aside the impugned orders (Annexures P-1 and P-2) and dismiss the application for ad-interim injunction. Before parting with the judgment, I refrain myself from passing strictures against the Additional District Judge, Patiala, as he has since retired, I would only direct the Registry to send copy of the order to the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Patiala for perusal so that she may not commit any mistake in future. October 23, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge