C.R. No.1805 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.1805 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 28.10.2010 Randhir Singh and another ……Petitioners VERSUS Karamjeet Kaur and others ……Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH -.- Present: Mr. Sukhdeep Parmar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. H.S. Dhandi, Advocate for the respondents. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) 1. Present petition is filed challenging the order dated 22.12.2009 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Nabha, whereby application moved by the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. seeking impleadment in a suit was dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that plaintiffs-respon- dents No.1 and 2 herein have filed one suit under Section 18 of the C.R. No.1805 of 2010 (O&M) -2- Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act (for brevity ‘the Act’) claiming maintenance from the defendant-respondent No.3 herein claiming themselves to be a wife and daughter of respondent No.3. In a suit filed by wife and daughter against husband-father i.e. respondent No.3, petitioners claiming themselves to be brothers of respondent No.3-defendant moved an application seeking impleadment contend- ing therein that unnecessarily their share in the property mentioned in the plaint is being charged with the maintenance. Learned trial Court vide impugned order rejected the impleadment application having ob- served that any order of maintenance passed against Ram Singh will affect the share of Ram Singh only and if Randhir Singh and Sukhwinder Singh are able to prove their joint ownership to be copar- ceners, their share in property cannot be held liable for the liability of Ram Singh qua his wife and daughter in the present petition. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. In a suit filed by wife and daughter against the husband and father claiming maintenance under Section 18 of the Act, broth- ers and other family members of the husband are neither necessary nor property party. The only apprehension of brothers of the defen- dant that their share would be affected by the charge created over the property for the maintenance seems to be mere baseless appre- hension in view of the observations made by learned trial Court as re- C.R. No.1805 of 2010 (O&M) -3- produced hereinabove. In view of this, order impugned does not re- quire any interference. 5. Petition is dismissed. ( ALOK SINGH ) 28h October, 2010 JUDGE ashish