RSA No.4518 of 2009 (O&M) ****** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.4518 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision:13.10.2010. Kulwinder Singh … Appellant. Versus Parminder Kaur (minor) …Respondent. CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Sherry K. Singla, Advocate, for the respondents. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. The defendant is in second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Courts below whereby suit filed by the minor plaintiff through her maternal uncle for maintenance from the defendant (father), has been decreed. In brief, the defendant is the father of the plaintiff who is convicted for the murder of her mother. The minor plaintiff was abandoned by the defendant, who has been looked after by her maternal uncle since the year 2003. The minor plaintiff then filed the present suit seeking maintenance under the provisions of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, which has been allowed by the learned Trial Court to the extent of Rs.3,000/- per month along with 3 years past maintenance at the same rate with court fee to be the first charge on the said maintenance because the suit was filed at that time as an indigent person. The appeal preferred by the defendant was dismissed which led to the filing of this second appeal, in which - 1- RSA No.4518 of 2009 (O&M) ****** learned counsel for the appellant has raised the only contention that in the presence of maternal grandparents and even the parental grandparents of the minor, suit could not have been filed through maternal uncle. I am afraid that this argument cannot be subscribed by this Court because in the case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. Sunita Devi, 2005(1) Civil Court Cases 572, the Division Bench of this Court had held that a lis filed by a minor through a guardian who has no adverse interest against him/her cannot be held to be not maintainable even if the said guardian is the brother of the minor. In the present case, the Courts below have held that interest of maternal uncle is proved to be not adverse to the interest of the minor, therefore, the suit filed by the minor through him was not found to be contrary to law. No other point has been raised. In view of the finding of fact recorded by the Courts below and in the absence of any substantial question of law raised or involved in this appeal, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and as such, the same is hereby dismissed with costs throughout. October 13, 2010. ( RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ) Vinod* JUDGE - 2-