C.R No. 2007 of 2010 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R No. 2007 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : March 30, 2010 Harbans Kaur and another, ...... Petitioner (s) v. Kulwant Singh and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. S.K.Singla, Advocate for the petitioners. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This petition has been filed against the orders of the Courts below rejecting the plaint of the petitioners qua respondent No.2. The petitioner, along with her daughter, filed a suit against her estranged husband and alleged mistress for claiming recovery of Rs.5 lacs towards istri-dhan as well as for maintenance. As regards istri-dhan, the allegation was that it was in the illegal possession of the husband and the mistress. On an application moved by the said mistress, the Courts below held that any claim which the petitioners may have could be only against the husband/father and consequently, accepted the application under Order 7 C.R No. 2007 of 2010 (O&M) ::2:: Rule 11 of the CPC. Counsel for the petitioners has argued that while discussing the case, the Courts below have erred in ignoring the claim for recovery of Rs.5 lacs and have acted as if the suit filed is merely a suit for maintenance. In case the impugned orders are allowed to stand, the case of the petitioners for recovery of istri-dhan would be considerably weakened because it would tantamount to withdrawal of the claim against respondent No.2. In my opinion, even though technistically speaking it may be said that the Courts below have not noticed the allegation of recovery of Rs.5 lacs while allowing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, yet it cannot be gainsaid that whatever dispute the petitioners have is with the husband/father. As regards the apprehension of counsel for the petitioners that if the impugned orders are allowed to stand it would imply an erosion of the claim of the petitioners since it would tantamount to an admission that the istri-dhan which was in the possession of respondent No.2 would be deemed to be given up; I find that that aspect can be adequately taken care of by clarifying that in case the petitioners are able to establish that istri-dhan of petitioner No.1 has wrongly been with-held, the responsibility for returning the same ( or the money value thereof) would lie solely with respondent No.1. Consequently, the impugned orders are upheld and this petition is disposed of with the above observations. ( AJAY TEWARI ) March 30, 2010. JUDGE `kk' C.R No. 2007 of 2010 (O&M) ::3::