Punjab-Haryana High Court
Antu Ram vs Usha Rani And Ors. on 25 August, 1999
Equivalent citations: (2000)124PLR753
Author: Amar Dutt
Bench: Amar Dutt
JUDGMENT Amar Dutt, J.
1. This petition seeks to challenge the order dated 10.10.1998 passed by the Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Kurukshetra granting interim maintenance to the respondent on an application under Section 19(1) and 21(4) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act.
2. The application for maintenance had been filed by respondents Usha Rani and her minor children asserting that she was married to Jarnail Singh son of Anant Ram, petitioner. After the death of Jarnail Singh, the petitioner had been maltreating them and had turned them out of the house. Whereafter, the respondent had taken up residence with the parents of Usha Rani. Since Usha Rani and minor children do not have any independent source of income and the father-in-law owns 18 acres of agricultural land in village Kaliana, Tehsil Thanesar and is earning Rs. three lakhs per annum and is also having tractor, Cows and Buffalows, therefore, he was obliged to maintain the respondents who do not have any income for sustaining themselves. In these circumstances they had asked for the maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- p.m. The application was contested on the ground that the respondents have constructed a house after spending rupees one lakhs and another amount of Rs. 12,000/- was already deposited in the account of Usha Rani. It was also submitted that no share of the deceased husband was left in the hands of the petitioner and as the plaintiff wife had remarried, she does not deserve any maintenance. As objection had also been taken to the effect that the suit had not been valued properly for the purposes of Court fee. The Civil Judge had after considering all aspects awarded as interim maintenance a sum of Rs. 750/- p.m. in favour of the daughter in law and Rs. 250/- for each of the minor children. Aggrieved by this order, Anant Ram has come up in revision.
3. The impugned order is being assailed on two grounds namely the right of a widow on remarriage to maintain the application for maintenance and the power of the Court to grant interim maintenance. Regarding the first ground, the Court below was rightly of the view that the question was to whether Usha Rani had remarried will have to be decided by the Court on the basis of material brought on the record in respect thereto during the trial at the time of final disposal of the application. In support of the second argument, reliance has been placed upon the observations made in Ramchandra Behera and Ors. v. Smt. Snehalata Dei, A.I.R. 1977 Orissa 96; Sodgar Singh v. Harbhajan Kaur and Ors., (1977)79 P.L.R. 506 and Makhan Singh v. Jagdish Kaur and Ors., (1991-2)99 P.L.R. 324.
4. In Sodagar Singh's case (supra) it was observed by this Court that under the Act there was no provision which authorised the Court to pass an order for payment of litigation expenses and maintenance allowance pendente lite. In Makhan Singh's case (supra), this Court relying upon the observations in Ramchandra-Behera's case (supra) observed that there is no specific provision for the grant of interim maintenance under Section 18 of the Act.
5. The proposition of law laid down in the aforesaid authorities was sought to be controverted on behalf of the respondents and it was pointed out that the view taken in these authorities run counter to the law laid down in Adigarla Simhanchalam v. Adigarala Papqmma, A.I.R. 1973 A.P. 31; Tarini Gupta Chowdhury v. Smt. Souri Gupta Chowdhury, A.I.R. 1968 Cal. 567; Madhukar Akhand v. Smt. Bhima Akhand and Anr., A.I.R. 1983 Bombay 480; Govind Panigrahi v. Tarkeshwari Panigrahi, 1987(2) H.L.R. 550, Sivankutty v. S. Komalakumari and Ors., A.I.R. 1989 Kerala 124; Neelam Malhotra v. Rajinder Malhotra and Ors., A.I.R. 1994 Delhi 234.
6. The ratio of all these judgments is to the effect that the Act does not provide for grant of interim maintenance pending the final decision of the proceedings yet the Court by virtue of the duty to render fair justice and in exercise of its inherent power under Section 151 C.P.C. has wide discretion to grant interim relief. The consensus of opinion was that power to grant interim maintenance was within the width and amplitude of Section 18 of the Act and while exercising the power the Court should not ignore considering the sad reality of long delays in the final disposal of the cases.
7. A Single Bench of this Court while considering all these judgments in Kanwar Vishwajit Singh v. Nirmala Kanwar and Anr., (1991-2)99 P.L.R. 27 had taken the view to the same effect.
8. These authorities have been relied by the counsel for the respondent to support the argument that while disposing of the application under Section 18 of the Act, the Court has power to grant interim maintenance.
9. On going through the decision rendered in Kanwar Vishwajit Singh's case (supra) it becomes clear that the Single Judge took into consideration the observations made in Sodagar Singh's case (supra) and has also relied upon Puran Singh and Ors. v. Mst. Har Kaur and Anr., 1970 Cur.L.J. 648, in which a Division Bench of this Court had considered this question and had held that the Court while disposing of an application under Section 18 of the Act was entitled to give interim maintenance and litigation expenses. To the same effect is the view taken in Sunita Gandhi v. Upinder Gandhi, (1993-3)105 P.L.R. 397.
10. In view of the law laid down in Puran Singh's and Sunita Gandhi's case (supra) and Kanwar Vishwajit Singh's case (supra), I had no hesitation to hold that the Court while dealing with an application for the grant of maintenance under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act is entitled to grant interim maintenance.
11. For the reasons recorded above, this petition has to be dismissed being devoid of any merit. Ordered accordingly.