CR No.8294/2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.8294/2010 Date of decision: 5.4.2011 Sukhdev Singh ....................Petitioner v. Darshan Kaur .....................Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh Present: Mr.Balbir Singh,Advocate for the petitioner. Jaswant Singh.J(Oral). Petitioner-husband has filed the present revision petition assailing the order dated 20.4.2010 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Phagwara whereby in a petition filed by the respondent-wife under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act,1956, he has been directed to pay Rs.2000/- as interim maintenance from the date of filing of the application/petition; further prayer is for quashing the order dated 1.9.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kapurthala whereby appeal filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent-wife is seriously disputed and in view of the same the interim maintenance could not be granted. In CR No.8294/2010 2 support, he cites a judgment of this Court reported as Satyavir Vashist v. Smt.Asha Gambir 2006(4) RCR (Civil) 86. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and considering the pleadings, this Court is fully in agreement with the findings recorded by both the courts below while granting interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month. It has been found that the petitioner, who is a resident of Australia had met Darshan Kaur- wife in the year 1993, when she had gone to Australia. They had allegedly performed their marriage and a Certificate of Marriage dated 7.5.1994 was issued by the parties at Australia. Since she had gone on a Visitor Visa, she had to return to India and thereafter she stayed in the house of her in-laws. It has further been found that throughout, she had stayed in the house of her in laws (parents of the husband) and in support, she has placed on record Ration Card, Voters list and the Voter Identity Card besides the Certificate of Marriage, which shows that she is recorded as wife of the petitioner-husband. In view of such evidence on record, though husband denies the relationship, it is prima facie established that respondent-Darshan Kaur is the wife of petitioner-Sukhdev Singh and in such circumstances, the ratio of the cited judgment admittedly is not applicable. Further, the grant of interim maintenance during the pendency of claim under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act,1956 is not disputed in view of the settled law noticed in the aforesaid judgment. In view of the above, I find no ground to interfere with the CR No.8294/2010 3 orders passed by the learned Courts below in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. Dismissed. 5.4.2011 (Jaswant Singh) manoj Judge