IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.6338 of 2006 Date of Decision:- 12.02.2008 Gurmej Singh ....Petitioner(s) through Mr.G.S.Sandhawalia, Advocate vs. Kuldip Kaur and another ....Respondent(s) through Mr.A.S.Gill, Advocate. *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** 1) Whether Reporters of the 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 4.4.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Nakodar wherby the respondents have been granted interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.900/- and Rs.600/- per month respectively with effect from 1.2.2005 as well as against the order dated 23.09.2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, dismissing the petitioner's appeal against the above-stated order. While respondent No.1-Kuldeep Kaur is the widow of late Dalbir Singh, respondent No.2-Jasmeet Singh is his minor son. The petitioner herein is father of deceased Dalbir Singh. The first respondent was married to Dalbir Singh on 25.3.2001 and respondent No.2 was born out of the wedlock on 22.10.2002. Respondent No.1 unfortunately lost her husband in a road accident on 25.12.2002. Alleging that the petitioner (father-in-law and grand-father of the respondents respectively) has refused to maintain them that the respondents have filed a suit for grant of maintenance under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. Pending suit, they moved an application for grant of ad-interim maintenance which has since been allowed by the Courts below, as referred to above. The petitioner's first contention that in the absence of an express provision in the Act for the grant of interim maintenance, the learned trial Court could not have granted the same, deserves to be simply noticed and rejected. The relief which can be finally granted by a Court, can be granted by it as an interim measure also, more so in the interest of substantial and real justice. Coming to the merits of the case, the petitioner's contention that some amount of compensation has already been awarded to the respondents by the MACT and, therefore, they have sufficient means to maintain themselves, has been taken noticed by both the Courts below and rightly rejected. The petitioner's third contention that there is no co-parcenary properties in his hands, therefore, the respondents are not entitled to claim any maintenance from him, is also a question of fact which is yet to be gone into by the learned trial Court. At present, there is nothing on record to suggest that the properties are petitioner's self-acquired. Apparently, the petitioner's deceased son would have a right to inherit his share in the joint Hindu family properties. No interference with the impugned order, therefore, is called for. Dismissed. Nothing said in this order, however, shall be taken to be an expression of opinion on the merits of this case. February 12, 2008 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE