R.S.A. No. 2024 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No. 2024 of 2009 Date of Decision: March 8, 2011 Sukhdev Kumar Bawa …..Appellant Vs. Naresh Rani …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.Vijay Lath, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Arvind Mittal, Advocate for the respondent. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Suit of the wife plaintiff- respondent for mandatory injunction has been decreed by the Courts below holding that the plaintiff- respondent is entitled to the recovery of post as well as future maintenance. Counsel for the appellant has argued that in view of provisions of Section 41 (h) of the Specific Relief Act, (for short ‘the Act’), alternative remedy is available to the plaintiff- respondent in the shape of the rights R.S.A. No. 2024 of 2009 [2] available under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as well as under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. It is vehemently urged that as the alternative remedy is available, the suit of the plaintiff- respondent was barred under Section 41 (h) of the Act. I have heard counsel for the defendant- appellant. As per the provisions of Section 39 of the Act, a plaintiff can file a suit for mandatory injunction to prevent breach of an obligation when it is necessary to compel the performance of certain acts which the Court is capable of for enforcing the legal rights available with the plaintiff- respondent, can be enforced in a civil Court. The civil rights available to the plaintiff- respondent wife for maintenance can be enforced by fling a civil suit, as she has got a right under Section 9 CPC to file a suit. The said question came up before this Court in Bhagwan Kaur Vs. Chetan Singh, AIR 1988 P&H 198 in which it was held that a civil Court was capable of enforcing the rights of a wife making it obligatory for the husband to pay the maintenance. The provisions of Section 18 of the Hindu adoption and Maintenance Act and provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. were taken into consideration Aher Mensi Ramsi Vs. Aherani Bai Mini Jetha, AIR 2001 Gujarat 148 in a suit for maintenance filed by a wife. In Full Bench judgment of Orissa High Court in Khadal Penthi Vs. Hulash Dei and another, AIR 1989 Orissa 137, it was held that a wife has got a right to be maintained as declared and recognized by Section 18 of the said Act is an enforceable right which can be enforced in a suit in the civil Court. Similarly is the ratio of judgment in Shri Krishan Lal Vs. Smt.Sudershan Kumari and others, 1978 PLR 148 R.S.A. No. 2024 of 2009 [3] where, in reference to Section 18 of the Act, it has been held that the right for claiming the maintenance is a civil Court. In view of the abovesaid judgments, I am of the considered opinion that civil court has got jurisdiction to enable a wife for enforcing rights of maintenance. Counsel for the defendant- appellant has placed reliance on State of Haryana Vs. Dr. Prem Singh Mann, 1996 (3) PLR 799, Teja Singh and others Vs. Balwant Singh, 2011 (1) RCR (Civil) 8 and India Navigation Company Vs. Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation, 2006 (1) RCR (Civil) 714 in support of his contentions that when alternative remedy is available, Section 41-H of the Act will be applicable and the said section would debar civil Suit for injunction. I have heard counsel for the appellant and gone through the judgments cited by him. There is no proposition regarding the interpretation of Section 41(h) of the Act which provides that injunction cannot be granted when equally efficacious relief can be available by usual mode of proceeding which might have been available to the plaintiff except filing the suit. But the facts and circumstances of the present case indicate that the plaintiff- respondent has got different remedies available to her in accordance with law. She has got a legal right of maintenance under the statutory provisions. She has opted to enforce her legal statutory rights by filing a suit which stands decreed by the Courts below. In the circumstances of the present case, it cannot be said that Section 41 (h) of the Act will create an absolute bar on the plaintiff- respondent to seek mandatory R.S.A. No. 2024 of 2009 [4] injunction/ recovery of maintenance amount from her husband defendant- appellant. No ground is made out for interfering in the concurrent finding of fact regarding the right of wife- respondent to claim maintenance. Dismissed. March 8, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE