IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No. 2797 of 2003. Date of Decision: 25th March, 2009. Gurdev Singh ....Petitioner through Mr. Vinod Arya, Advocate Versus Balwinder Kaur & Anr. ...Respondents through None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 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? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 14.1.2003 passed by the learned District Judge, Patiala whereby, the appeal preferred by the respondent-plaintiff [Balwinder Kaur], has been accepted and the petitioner and his son [Balwinder Singh] have been restrained from alienating the immovable properties. The petitioner is father-in-law of Balwinder Kaur. His contention is that he can not be restrained from alienating his self- acquired property as the respondent-plaintiff has no claim to seek maintenance against him during the lifetime of her husband. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in this revision petition. The question as to whether or not the attached property is a self-acquired property of the petitioner or whether maintenance can be claimed against him are the questions of fact which are yet to be determined by the learned trial Court as the suit is still pending. The Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to raise all these issues before the learned Civil Court which shall be gone into, in accordance with law. Disposed of. March 25, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE