CR No. 6924 of 2009(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 6924 of 2009(O&M) Decided on : 23-09-2010 Balbir ....Petitioner VERSUS Smt. Krishana ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr.Kulvir Narwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.K.Malhotra, Advocate for the respondent MAHESH GROVER, J The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 23.9.2009. The sole grievance of the petitioner is that according to Section 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') interim maintenance cannot be granted. He in support of his contention has placed reliance on cases titled as Sodagar Singh versus Smt. Harbhajan Kaur and others PLR 1977 Vol LXXIX 506, Satyavir Vashisht versus Smt. Asha Gambir 2007(1) Marriage Law Journal 99 and Gorivelli Appanna versus Gorivelli Seethamma AIR 1972 AP 62 It is further the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the marriage of the respondent with the son of the petitioner is seriously in dispute and once such a dispute has been raised, the Court was precluded from granting interim maintenance. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent with reference to para 9 of the impugned order contends that there is sufficient material in shape of a photocopy of the Bank account maintained by the son of the petitioner, a photocopy of the ration card, photocopy of the CR No. 6924 of 2009(O&M) 2 Form DA 1 nominating respondent by Mahesh Kumar son of the petitioner to suggest that the said respondent has been married to the son of the petitioner. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that according to Section 19 of the Act no interim maintenance can be granted for the reason that there is no provision, has to be rejected. Once the provision for grant of maintenance is there in the statute then by way of necessary implication the grant of interim maintenance cannot be fettered by a constructive interpretation. In Bohar Singh vs. Balwinder Kaur 2000 (4) RCR(civil) 172 it was observed as under:- “8. The ratio of all these judgments is to the effect that though the Act does not provide for grant of interim maintenance pending the final decision of the proceedings yet the court by virtue of its duty to render fair justice and its inherent power under Section 151 CPC has wide discretion to grant interim relief. The consensus of opinion seems to be that power to grant interim maintenance was within the width and amplitude of Section 18 of the Act and while exercising the power the Court should not ignore considering the said reality of long delay in the final disposal of the case. xxxxxxxxxx 12. In view of the law laid down in Puran Singh and Sunita Gandhi's case (supra) and Kanwar Vishwajit Singh's case(supra), I have no hesitation to hold that the CR No. 6924 of 2009(O&M) 3 Court while dealing with an application for the grant of maintenance under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act is entitled to grant interim maintenance”. Likewise in Sukhminder Singh vs. Baljeet Kaur 2000 (1) MLJ 513 the interference was refused by the Court when it was observed that grant of interim maintenance cannot be interfered with as it will deprive the claimant of the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Further this Court in case titled as Satyavir Vashisht versus Smt. Asha Gambir reported as 2007 Vol.1 Marriage Law Journal 99 has observed that where there is serious dispute regarding the relationship of the parties then in such an eventuality the maintenance shall not be granted. There can be no dispute about this fact that where the relationship is disputed and there is ambiguity therein then the Court should be watchful in granting any interim relief pursuant to the aforesaid provision of law. However, if the Court on examination of the material finds sufficient material which is suggestive of an established relationship of the parties then a mere denial simpliciter on the part of the person facing proceedings under Section 19 of the Act shall not be construed to be an impediment in the grant of the interim maintenance. For the aforesaid reasons, I am not in agreement with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and accordingly, the revision petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. September 23, 2010 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge