CR No. 4250 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 4250 of 2008 Date of Decision: 1.9.2009 Veerpal Kaur ....Petitioner. Versus Gurpreet Singh and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Amit Dhawan and Mr. Ashok Khichi, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. V.K. Kataria, Advocate for the respondents. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the plaintiff-petitioner has assailed the order dated 1.4.2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by the trial court whereby the application filed by her for grant of interim maintenance along with litigation expenses during the pendency of the civil suit was dismissed. The facts, in brief, for the disposal of the instant revision petition are that the plaintiff filed a suit against her brothers, defendants No.1 and 2, and mother, defendant No.3, seeking declaration to the effect that she was owner of the land measuring 18 kanals 1 marla being 361/3773 share out of the land measuring 188 kanals 17 marlas situated within the revenue estate of village Mani Singh Wala, Sub CR No. 4250 of 2008 -2- Tehsil Sadiq, Tehsil and District Faridkot and further she was owner of 1/4th share in the vehicles mentioned in the head note of the plaint being owned by her father, late Darshan Singh. It was pleaded that her father died intestate as he did not execute any Will in favour of the defendant- respondents. In the aforesaid suit, she filed an application for interim maintenance, as mentioned above. The trial court while declining the said application of the plaintiff-petitioner had recorded as under:- “Admittedly, defendants No.1 & 2 are brothers of plaintiff and there is no law in which a sister can claim maintenance from her brothers. So far as the mother is concerned, Darshan Singh father of plaintiff has executed Will of his property in favour of his sons and nothing has been paid in the Will to defendant No.3. Plaintiff has also not disclosed any source of income of defendant No.3. When no income of defendant No.3 is alleged or shown by the plaintiff, certainly, she cannot get any maintenance from such like person, in absence of any proof of income. So far as the right of residence is concerned, this is admitted by the plaintiff that she is living with her aunt Charno. While deciding application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC, it has been held that the plaintiff is entitled to all kinds of facilities and expenses for her daily need from her aunt Charno but even if she wants the company of her mother in the house of her CR No. 4250 of 2008 -3- father, she cannot be denied this right in any way till her marriage and even after marriage if she is deserted by her husband and unfortunately she turns to be widow. So, this application is also dismissed with the observation that the plaintiff shall have the right of residence in the house of her father Darshan Singh, along with defendants.” In view of the above, this Court is satisfied that there is no illegality or perversity in the order dated 1.4.2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by the trial court which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. September 1, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE