DEVINDER SINGH Vs. HARMINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the trial Court dt. May 29, 1982, whereby a sum of Rs. 150/- per month was allowed as interim maintenance to tie respondent wife.

(2.) At the time of the motion hearing, the learned counsel cited Sodagar Singh v. Shrimati Harbhajan Kaur, (1977) 79 Punj LR 506 to contend that the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. 1956. did not authorise the passing of any order for the payment of litigation expenses and maintenance allowance pendent lite. The learned counsel for the respondent has cited a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Puran Singh v. Mst. Har Kaur, 1970 Cur LJ 648, wherein it was held that where the marital status was admitted, it was the, duty of the husband to maintain the wife no matter even if she was not prepared to live with him or perform the conjugal duties. It is another matter if she had become unchaste or had remarried. In that event, there was no duty on the husband to maintain her. Unfortunately the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Puran Singh's case (supra), was not cited before the learned single Judge while deciding Sodagar Singh's case (supra). There being a Division Bench judgment on the point, I am bound by the same.

(3.) Faced with this situation, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the suit for maintenance as brought by the plaintiff-respondent has not been registered as yet because the application for permission to sue in forma pauperis was still pending when the impugned order was passed. Thus argued the learned counsel, no relief of interim maintenance could be granted at least at that stage In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon Mohan Singh v. Mohinder Kaur, 1977 Hindu LR 268, wherein it was held that it was not at all in doubt that the application for leave to sue in forma pauperis was as yet merely pending trial when the order under revision was passed and that it was, therefore, plain that at that stage, that Is, during the pendency of the application, no relief by way of interim maintenance to the respondent was possible. The learned counsel for the respondent cited Smt. Gian Devi v. Amar Nath Aggarwal, ILR (1975) 1 Delhi 811 and contended that it was the duty of the Court to protect the interest of the applicant even at that stage of the proceedings in spite of the fact that the application for leave to sue in forma pauperis was still to be adjudicated upon for the purpose of finding out whether the applicant was entitled to sue as such. However, in view of the judgment of this Court in Mohan Singh's case (supra), I am of the considered opinion that no relief by way of interim maintenance could be granted to the respondent wife during the pendency of the application for permission to sue in forma pauperia.