Civil Revision No. 3975 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 3975 of 2009 Date of Decision: 20.7.2009 Simraj Singh Basi …Petitioner Versus Mandeep Singh Basi …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Ms. Sushma Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Present revision petition has been filed by Simraj Singh Basi resident of Jaspalon, Tehsil Khanna, District Ludhiana, minor through Kamal Rashpal Singh, who is attorney of Sohan Singh, maternal uncle of the petitioner. A prayer has been made in the present revision petition that order (Annexure P1) passed by the Court of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Khanna, wherein it was held that no cause of action has arisen to the petitioner in India to file suit for maintenance and same cannot be tried for want of jurisdiction be set aside. The Court passed the impugned order and held that since the suit cannot be tried for want of jurisdiction, therefore, the same is to be dismissed as not maintainable. The application filed by the petitioner seeking permission to sue as forma pauper was also declined. Petitioner has further Civil Revision No. 3975 of 2009 2 prayed that order (Annexure P2) passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Ludhiana, whereby order of trial Court (Annexure P1) was affirmed be also set aside. Mandeep Singh Basi was married with Jasbir Kaur. Petitioner Simraj Singh Basi was born from the womb of Jasbir Kaur and from the loins of Mandeep Singh Basi on 10.11.1997. As per averments made in the present petition, Jasbir Kaur and Mandeep Singh Basi, parents of the petitioner, obtained divorce in United Kingdom on 19.8.2002 and petitioner is residing in United Kingdom in custody of his maternal grand father. Admittedly, petitioner and his parents are residing in United Kingdom. No Court at United Kingdom has determined the right of maintenance and quantum of the maintenance to which petitioner is entitled. The suit for maintenance was instituted in India only on the ground that father of the petitioner has got immovable property falling within the territorial jurisdiction of Civil Courts at Khanna. The lower Appellate Court came to conclusion that maintenance to be paid to the appellant was decided by the relevant Court in United Kingdom at the time of decision of the divorce petition. The Court further noticed that according to the appellant, respondent in United Kingdom refused to make payment of maintenance allowance to him which he was bound to pay being father. No document from which award of maintenance could be inferred has been placed on record of the present petition. Ms. Sushma Chopra, Advocate, appearing for petitioner, has stated that petitioner being minor son of respondent and born to Indian parents, who are Non-Resident Indians, is entitled to file civil suit and claim maintenance in India. It is further stated that even if maintenance Civil Revision No. 3975 of 2009 3 is awarded in Great Britain, petitioner is entitled to create charge on immovable property vested in his father and situated in India, within the jurisdiction of trial Court. Divorce petition between parents of petitioner has been decided in the United Kingdom. What were the terms of divorce, who got the custody of child, whether any arrangement regarding maintenance of minor child i.e. petitioner was arrived at, whether petitioner instituted any maintenance proceedings in the United Kingdom, if so, what was the outcome. Neither any averment has been made to this effect, nor any document has been placed on record. The Courts below came to conclusion that the petitioner and respondent are residing in United Kingdom. The respondent/defendant is also having his business in United Kingdom. The respondent/defendant has also refused to pay maintenance in United Kingdom. Therefore, the Courts below held that no cause of action has arisen in India and, therefore, were well-justified in holding that the suit is not maintainable for want of jurisdiction. As consequence thereof, application to pursue the suit as forma pauper has also been rightly dismissed. No interference is warranted in the present revision petition and, hence, the same is dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge July 20, 2009 “DK”