SURINDER PAL SINGH Vs. PAVANVIR KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the cider of the trial Court dated September 7, 1988, whereby interim maintenance was granted to the respondent-widow during the pendency of her suit filed for maintenance and possession of her late husband's estate, who died on May 29, 1983. The Court has come to the conclusion that the grant of interim maintenance during the pendency of the suit is permissible and has fixed it at Rs. 2,000/- per month after holding that the deceased-husband was taming more than Rs. 2 lacs per annum from his estate.

(2.) THE primary challenge to the order is on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction to grant interim maintenance end, it. any case, the quantum of maintenance allowed is not sustainable as the plaintiff had failed to produce any reliable evidence to establish the income of the deceased from the estate he has left behind.

(3.) HAVING given my thoughtful consideration to these pleas I find no merit; in this petition. The right of the widow to claim maintenance from the estate of the deceased-husband cannot seriously be disputed of view of the clear language of Section 22 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance, Act, 1956, which lays down that the heirs of a deceased Hindu are bound to maintain the dependents of the deceased out. of the estate inherited by them from the deceased As per Section 21 of the Act, the widow is certainly a dependant. Further, Shis proposition of law has been examined in Nandipati Gongireddy and Ors. v. Bomma Reddy Bullenna and Ors. , 1977 H. L. R. 441 by a learned Single Judge of the Andfaira Pradesh High Court and it has been ruled that the Court has the inherent powers of grant interim maintenance in a suit for possession by the wife in respect of her husband's property after his death. The fact of that case are in pan materia with the factual position here I have no good grounds to take any different, view than what has been said in that case, So far as the fixation of quantum of maintenance is concerned, 1 hardly find any ground to interfere in the findings of the lower Court. Therefore, this petition is dismissed with costs as devoid of merit. Costs are determined at Rs. 1000/ -.