RSA No.2664 of 1988 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No. 2664 of 1988 Date of Decision: 25 - 11 - 2010 Sarti ....Appellant v. Roop Chand and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.Amit Jain, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Jasbeer Singh, Advocate for Mr.Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the respondents. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA (ORAL) Plaintiff-appellant was married with Singh Ram. She instituted a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance from her husband - Singh Ram. Judicial Magistrate, Rewari vide order dated 2.6.1981 directed Singh Ram to pay `100/- p.m. towards maintenance to his wife (appellant herein).The accumulated amount of `600/- was to be paid every six months. To defeat the right of the plaintiff- appellant, Singh Ram-defendant No.1 (respondent No.4 herein) alienated the suit property in favour of defendants No.2 to 7 by suffering a collusive decree on 19.8.1981. A grievance was made by the plaintiff-appellant in the RSA No.2664 of 1988 [2] suit that the property has been transferred to defendants No.2 to 7 only to defeat her right of maintenance. The Court of Additional Senior Sub Judge, Rewari vide judgment dated 24.4.1987 held that the decree is collusive and was a result of fraud, only to defeat the right of the plaintiff-appellant to recover the maintenance. It was further held that plaintiff-appellant was entitled to grant of injunction restraining her husband - Singh Ram (respondent No.4) to alienate the suit property, in any manner, during the subsistence of order of maintenance. Aggrieved against the same, the defendant-respondents to the suit, in whose favour the collusive decree was suffered filed an appeal. The Appellate Court below held that the plaintiff-appellant has a charge over the property transferred by her husband - Singh Ram to defendants No.2 to 7 and it was ordered that the maintenance allowance shall be paid by defendants No.2 to 7 (respondents to the present appeal). The present Regular Second Appeal was filed and while issuing notice, alienation of the suit property was stayed. During the pendency of the appeal, the land was acquired by the Land Acquisition Collector, Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation. An application was filed by the respondents for modification of order dated 1.2.1989. A Co-ordinate Bench on 2.7.1996 had passed the following order:- “Argument heard. The applicants are directed to deposit a sum of Rs.75,000/- in a nationalised bank in the name of Smt.Sarti appellant. The Manager of the Bank is directed to pay a sum RSA No.2664 of 1988 [3] of Rs.500/- per month regularly to Smt.Sarti from the interest which may accrue on the deposited amount of Rs.75,000/-. Smt.Sarti may move a separate application in a competent Court of jurisdiction for enhancement of her maintenance, if she is so advised. However, it is clarified that the actual deposited amount of Rs.75,000/- shall not be paid by the Bank to Smt.Sarti during the pendency of this appeal. Directions are also issued to the Land Acquisition Collector for the release of the deposited amount in favour of the applicants. With the above observations, the order dated Ist February, 1989 stands modified. The C.M. stands disposed of accordingly.” When the present appeal was instituted, husband of the plaintiff-appellant was alive. This Court vide interim order dated 2.7.1996 enhanced the amount of maintenance from `100/- to `500/-, which is being paid to the wife. A right was also granted to the plaintiff-appellant to seek enhancement of the maintenance. It is not in dispute that plaintiff-appellant had no better claim over the property except the right to recover the amount of maintenance which accrued to her because of order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Rewari under Section 125 Cr.P.C. That right of maintenance secured by deposit of `75,000/-. In the facts and circumstances of this case, neither any substantial question of law has been argued nor formulated by counsel for RSA No.2664 of 1988 [4] the appellant. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. As stated earlier, the plaintiff-appellant shall continue to draw the maintenance out of ` 75,000/- kept in the Bank. Furthermore, if the maintenance is enhanced by any competent Court of jurisdiction, the same shall be paid to the plaintiff- appellant. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) November 25, 2010. JUDGE RC