Crl.R No. 3227 of 2009 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.R No. 3227 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : January 21, 2011 Karan Singh, ...... Petitioner v. Kavita, ...... Respondent *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. N.R.Dahiya, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sumanjit Kaur, Advocate for the respondent. *** 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 order dated 23.11.2009 passed by the learned Family Court allowing maintenance of Rs.3,000/- and right of residence to the respondent-wife. Counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the petitioner is the father-in-law and is not liable to maintain the daughter-in- law or to permit her to stay in his house. He has further argued that the house where the petitioner is staying is his mother's house and he does not Crl.R No. 3227 of 2009 (O&M) ::2:: own any house. He has relied upon S.R.Batra & another v. Taruna Batra 2007(1) Marriage Law Journal (SC) 143, Vimalben Ajitbhai Patel v. Vatslabeen Ashokbhai Patel, and 2008(2) Marriage Law Journal 376. In S.R.Batra & another's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows :- “ 27. Learned counsel for the respondent Smt. Taruna Batra has relied upon Section 19(i)(f) of the Act and claimed that she should be given an alternative accommodation. In our opinion, the claim for alternative accommodation can only be made against the husband and not against the husband's in-laws or other relatives.” In Vimalben Ajitbhai Patel's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows :- “21. Maintenance of a married wife, during subsistence of marriage, is on the husband. It is a personal obligation. The obligation to maintain a daughter-in-law arises only when the husband has died. Such an obligation can also be met from the properties of which the husband is a co-sharer and not otherwise. For invoking the said provision, the husband must have a share in the property. The property in the name of the mother-in-law can neither be a subject matter of attachment nor during the life time of the husband, his personal liability to maintain his wife can be directed to be enforced against such property.” Of-course, in normal circumstances the proposition of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments would bind this Court. However, in the present case what has transpired is that the son of the petitioner (husband) has abandoned his wife and is now living in USA. Thus, he is beyond the jurisdiction of any Court of this country. Counsel for the petitioner has also argued that the bald statement of the respondent that the petitioner is getting Rs.40,000/- per month as salary cannot be accepted, and has drawn the attention of the Crl.R No. 3227 of 2009 (O&M) ::3:: Court towards Annexure P-10 as per which the entire salary of the petitioner has been deducted against some outstandings due to him. In my opinion, this is no ground, since the maintenance awarded is a paltry amount of Rs.3,000/- per month. On the last date of hearing, I put it to counsel for the petitioner if the petitioner would prevail upon his son to provide maintenance to his wife but counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner has disowned his son and, therefore, is not in his control. The sum and substance is that the person who is legally bound to maintain his wife is not making any effort to do so and his parents have taken a specious plea that he is not in their control. In these extraordinary circumstances, the abandoned wife cannot be left in the lurch like this. Consequently, the impugned order is upheld and this petition is dismissed. ( AJAY TEWARI ) January 21, 2011. JUDGE `kk'