C.R.No.166 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.166 of 2008. Decided on July 30, 2009. Rajat Taneja. .. Petitioner VERSUS Pooja Taneja and another. .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI PRESENT Mr.Divya Sarup, Advocate, for Mr.Sumeet Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Binderjit Singh, Advocate, for the respondents. M.M.S. BEDI, J . (ORAL) Vide impugned order dated 30.11.2007, the trial Court has passed an order granting interim maintenance to respondent No.1 @ Rs.3,000/- per month whereas respondent No.2, has been granted maintenance @ Rs.1500/- per month. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the interim maintenance cannot be granted to the respondents during pendency of their application under Order 33 ...1 C.R.No.166 of 2008 Rule 1 CPC. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on Dr.Devinder Singh Vs.Smt.Harminder Kaur, reported in AIR 1984 (P&H), Page-40, to contend that suit for maintenance has not been registered as an application for permission to sue as forma pauperis is still pending, as such, impugned order is not maintainable in law. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on Sukhminder Singh Vs. Baljeet Kaur, reported in 2000(1), Civil Court Cases, Page 21, (P&H), in which after considering the ratio of the judgment in Dr.Devinder Singh's case (supra), it has been held that a Court exercising jurisdiction in Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, can grant interim maintenance during pendency of an application for permission to file the suit as an indigent person when the relationship between the parties is not disputed. The operative part of the judgment reads as follow: - '6. The plaintiffs filed the suit as indigent persons claiming that they have no means even to pay the Court fee. It will take some time for the Court to decide the application. It is not the intention of the Legislation that the plaintiff who filed the suit claiming maintenance should be made to starve during the pendency of the application. The provisions relating to maintenance are benevolent provisions. They have to be interpreted in favour of the beneficiaries. As already observed, the liability to maintain the wife and children arises because of matrimonial tie and subsistence of the ...2 C.R.No.166 of 2008 marriage between the parties. It if is held that no maintenance can be granted during the pendency of the application, it will deprive the right to life of the applicant as envisaged by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. I am, therefore, unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no order granting maintenance can be passed during the pendency of the application for permission to file the suit as an indigent person. 7. In this view of the matter, I do not find any ground warranting interference with the order of the trial Court granting interim maintenance to the plaintiff-applicants.' In the above circumstances, this revision petition is dismissed. It will not be out of place to mention here that the petitioner has submitted that respondent no.1 has been awarded maintenance in matrimonial proceedings in her application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, @ Rs.3,000/- per month. It is made clear that in case the petitioner has actually paid a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance in any proceedings against him, he will be entitled to get maintenance amount adjusted in proceedings under Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE July 30, 2009. rka ...3