C.R. No.4602 of 2006 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.4602 of 2006 (O&M) Date of Decision: 24.08.2009 Sarwan Singh .....Petitioner Versus Chhinder Kaur ...Respondent Present: None for the parties. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J. (ORAL) 1. The revision petitioner challenges the concurrent orders allowing the plaintiff-petitioner before the trial Court, who claimed to be the wife of the defendant, from alienating the property. The suit had been filed as an indigent person claiming maintenance and seeking a charge of the property described in the suit. The defendant's contention in the application for injunction was that the plaintiff was not his wife and that further the property against which the charge was sought remained outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court and therefore, such an application was not maintainable. The trial Court found prima facie proof of both the status of the plaintiff as wife as well as justifiable apprehension that the respondent was attempting to alienate the property and that it was to be restrained. Aggrieved by the decision, the defendant has preferred an appeal which affirmed the order of injunction granted by the trial Court. The civil revision is C.R. No.4602 of 2006 -2- filed against the same. 2. There is no infirmity in the reasoning adopted by the trial Court. A suit for maintenance against a husband by a wife is at once personal as well as an enforcement against the property. The suit cannot be taken as a suit in respect of immovable property to invoke Section 16 of the Civil Procedure code. It will continue to be reckoned as a suit against the person who was within the jurisdiction of the Court and a right to a charge is an ancillary relief and not the basis for founding the cause of action for institution. The finding as regards the prima facie claim of the plaintiff as well as the competence of the Court to entertain the suit have been done on proper legal basis and there is no error or illegality in the orders passed by the Court below to suffer them for interference in revision. 3. The civil revision is without merit and liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE August 24, 2009 Pankaj*