Civil Revision No.1264 of 2009 (O&M) -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1264 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: July 17, 2009. Jatinderpal Singh ...Petitioner(s) v. Joginder Kaur & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Gurcharan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): This revision petition is directed against the order dated 19.11.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala whereby the petitioner-judgment-debtor's objections in an execution application filed by the respondent-decree holders, have been dismissed and as an interim measure the release of retiral benefits to him (except GPF) has been stayed. The facts may be briefly noticed. The minor children of the petitioner, aged 16 years and 13 years respectively at the relevant time (Jaspreet Kaur and Jagdeep Singh) filed a suit for the grant of maintenance and permanent injunction against the petitioner, which was decreed by the civil court at Patiala vide judgment and Civil Revision No.1264 of 2009 (O&M) -: 2 :- decree dated 1.9.2008, whereby both the children were awarded maintenance @ Rs.2500/- per month each with effect from 15.10.1999 till their respective ages of attaining majority. Respondent No.2 plaintiff, namely, daughter of the petitioner was further granted maintenance @ Rs.2500/- per month “till the date of her marriage or till the time she is able to earn her livelihood, whichever is earlier”. The civil court also granted a decree of permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from alienating the property bearing No.2196-B-X near Mistriwala Gurdwara, Ambala City or to create a charge on the house; salary and credit balance and savings of the petitioner till the payment of maintenance to both the children. It is not in dispute that the son of the petitioner, namely, plaintiff No.2 attained majority on 30.9.2005 whereas his daughter, namely, plaintiff No.1 has also attained majority but is still unmarried and statedly unemployed. The civil court decree having attained finality, the petitioner's children have filed an execution application in which the petitioner filed objections, inter-alia, objecting that:- (i) both the children including his daughter are not entitled to any maintenance after attaining the age of majority; (ii) the daughter is not entitled to claim maintenance as she is earning handsomely through tuition work; (iii) the children do not need maintenance as they are exempted from paying college fee; (iv) both the children have disentitled themselves to claim maintenance as they have refused to live with their petitioner-father; and (v) the petitioner has retired from service on 30.11.2008 and after retirement, his pensionary benefits cannot be attached in execution of the decree. The petitioner also questioned the validity of the decree passed by the civil court. The Civil Revision No.1264 of 2009 (O&M) -: 3 :- executing court, however, has dismissed the objections. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the impugned order. In my considered view, no case to interfere with the order passed by the executing court is made out. There is no denial to the fact that the civil court decree between the parties has attained finality. The objection regarding validity of the decree, therefore, is wholly misconceived. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner's daughter, namely, plaintiff No.1 is still unmarried. No evidence, whatsoever, has been led by the petitioner to show that she is doing any tuition work and has sufficient means of livelihood. In the absence of any cogent evidence, she is also entitled to the fruits of the decree passed in her favour. Similarly, the petitioner's plea that the children have disentitled themselves to claim maintenance as they have refused to stay with him, is also baseless as it has come on record that the petitioner has got re-married and is living with his second wife and children. The respondent-plaintiff's refusal to live with the petitioner is, thus, justified. That besides, the decree specifically entitles the respondents to claim maintenance with effect from 15.10.1999 onwards till the date of attaining the majority (in the case of the son or till she gets married or earns livelihood in the case of the daughter). The petitioner's son has claimed arrears of maintenance only upto the date of attaining majority. In the case of the respondent-daughter, since she is still unmarried and no independent source of her livelihood has been proved on record, the executing court has committed no error of jurisdiction in rejecting the petitioner's objections and/or attaching his retiral benefits till the arrears of maintenance are paid, more so when it is the case of the respondent-decree holders that the petitioner has already disposed of some Civil Revision No.1264 of 2009 (O&M) -: 4 :- of the immovable properties in order to obstruct the execution of the decree. Dismissed. July 17, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge