RSA No.3663 of 2008 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : March 23, 2010 1. RSA No.3663 of 2008 (O&M) Chand Singh vs Sukhpreet Kaur and another, 2. RSA No.1872 of 2009 (O&M) Jagdev Singh and others vs Sukhpreet Kaur and another. *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Amit Dhawan, Advocate for the appellants. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This order shall dispose of RSA Nos.3663 of 2008 and 1872 of 2009 since they are between the same parties and essentially spring from the same cause of action. RSA No.3663 of 2008 arises from a suit filed by the respondents (minor children of the appellant) claiming maintenance against the appellant. Both the Courts below found that the appellant was liable to pay the maintenance, and consequently decreed the suit. RSA No.1872 of 2009 arises from a suit filed by the same respondents claiming that their father-Chand Singh and his attorney had illegally harvested the crops sown by the respondents on the land which RSA No.3663 of 2008 (O&M) ::2:: admittedly belonged to the appellant-Chand Singh, and thereby praying for recovery of the amount of harvest. Both the Courts below found that defendants No.1 to 4 had forcibly harvested the standing crops of the plaintiffs and decreed the suit. Counsel for the appellants initially argued that both the decrees could not be passed simultaneously. In case the suit for maintenance was allowed, then the respondents would not be entitled for usufruct of the land which belonged to the appellant-Chand Singh. The first question which arises is whether the appellant-Chand Singh had in fact paid any amount of maintenance to his minor children. Counsel for the appellants has candidly stated that no such amount has been paid. It would be seen that even despite the fact that the appellant admits that the respondents are his minor children, he has neither paid any amount of maintenance to them nor has permitted them to enjoy the usufruct of the property which they had in their possession. The following questions of law have been proposed in both these appeals :- “ i) Whether the judgment dated 30.3.2005, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Moga is illegal and erroneous ? ii) Whether the judgment and decree dated 12.11.2007 passed by the learned ADJ, Moga is illegal and erroneous ?” In my opinion, there can be no denial of the fact that the appellant-Chand Singh is legally and morally bound to maintain his minor children. I find that both the Courts below have granted maintenance @ RSA No.3663 of 2008 (O&M) ::3:: Rs.2000/- per month to the minors till the date they attain majority. Counsel for the appellants has not been able to persuade me that this finding is either based on no evidence or is based on such misreading of evidence so as to render the same so perverse as to be liable for interference under Section 100 of the CPC. Since it is not the case of the appellant that he had paid any maintenance to his minor children, I am disinclined to interfere even in the second decree of recovery of money. Consequently, holding the questions proposed against the appellants, both these appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs. As the main appeals have since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) March 23, 2010. JUDGE `kk'