CM No.4527-CII of 2010 :1: and CR No.4799 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.4527-CII of 2010 and CR No.4799 of 2008 Date of decision: 23.02.2010 Kulwant Singh .. Petitioner (Defendant No.1) Versus Harbans Kaur and another .. Respondents (Plaintiffs) CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI a). Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? b). To be referred to the Reporters or not ? c). Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present:- Mr.Gurcharan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.N.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the respondent AJAY TEWARI J. . . . CM No.4527-CII of 2010 in For the reasons recorded in the application, same stands allowed and the counter-affidavit of the applicant-petitioner is taken on record. CR No.4799 of 2008 This petition has been filed against the order allowing interim maintenance to the wife and daughter of the petitioner. The respondents have filed the suit under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act for recovery of the value of dowry articles/Istridhan and for maintenance @ Rs.7,000/- p.m. on the ground that the respondent No.1 was a house-wife and the respondent No.2 was the unmarried daughter. It was disputed by saying that the petitioner is a heart-patient and is therefor unable to do any heavy work and further that he is still under medical CM No.4527-CII of 2010 :2: and CR No.4799 of 2008 treatment and spends about Rs.1500/- on account of his medical expenses. It is further pleaded that the property mentioned, which was stated to be owned by him, was hypothecated. The learned Trial Court by way of interim maintenance awarded Rs.3,000/- p.m. to the respondent No.1 and Rs.2,000/- p.m. to the respondent No.2 from the date of application and made clear that the interim maintenance to respondent No.2 would be only till solemnization of her marriage. A charged was created on the immovable property of the petitioner to ensure the payment of this interim maintenance. In this revision petition, the same facts have been reiterated and it was alleged that even the respondent No.1 held property in her name; it was further urged that the respondents were staying in his house and it was therefore, prayed that the impugned order be set aside. The respondents have also placed on record some other documents showing the extent of the property of the petitioner and the petitioner has filed the counter-affidavit denying the same. However, in my opinion, once, it is admitted that the respondent was the wife of the petitioner and further that the respondent No.2 was unmarried daughter, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to maintain them. Consequently, it cannot be said that the impugned order suffers from such material irregularity so as to liable for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this revision petition as well as Civil Miscellaneous Application, if any, is dismissed. February 23, 2010 (AJAY TEWARI) Sukhpreet JUDGE