CR No.2486 of 2010 (O & M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.2486 of 2010 (O & M) Date of decision: 06.05.2010 Harbans Kaur and another ..Petitioners Versus Kulwant Singh and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI a). Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? b). To be referred to the Reporters or not ? c). Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present:- Mr.S.K.Singla, Advocate for the petitioners. AJAY TEWARI J. (ORAL) This petition has been filed against the order of the Courts below disposing of an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC filed by the petitioner-plaintiffs. The petitioner No.1 along with her daughter filed a suit against her estranged husband and alleged mistress for claiming recovery of Rs.5 Lacs towards Istridhan as well as of maintenance. As regards Istridhan, the allegation was that it was in the illegal possession of the husband and the mistress. The prayer made in the instant application was that the respondent should be restrained from alienating any part of his property since that could jeopardise any subsequent recovery which the petitioner may have to initiate against the respondent on the suit being decreed. The learned Trial Court created a charge on the property of the respondent towards the component of past and future maintenance. However, with regard to recovery of Istridhan, no charge was created. The learned Appellate Court endorsed this decision and that is how the petitioners are before this Court. Learned counsel has argued that it would be in the interest of justice if the respondent is CR No.2486 of 2010 (O & M) ::2:: restrained from alienating, if not, the whole of his property, at least some specified admitted portion thereof so that the petitioners would have realistic right to recover any amount which may ultimately be found due to them. It would be seen that the suit filed by the petitioner No.1 and her daughter prays for two distinct components of relief, the first is maintenance and the second is recovery of property. It cannot be disputed that the right to recover maintenance ex facie exists and even without evidence having been led it may be held that the respondent is bound to maintain the petitioner No.1 and her daughter. Only the amount of maintenance may have to be determined after evidence. It must be noticed here that recovery with regard to component of Istridhan stands on a different footing. It is yet to be proved whether any and if so of what value is the Istridhan of the petitioner No.1 which is in possession of the respondent-husband. Therefore, it would not be in the interest of justice to secure this component of the relief. As far as the amount of maintenance claimed by the petitioners, I find that the steps taken by the Courts below viz. creation of a charge on the property of the respondent adequately safeguard the interest of the petitioner No.1 and her daughter. Consequently, this petition is dismissed. No costs. Since the main petition has been decided, the civil miscellaneous application, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE May 06, 2010 sukhpreet