PHOOLA DEVI Vs. RAM BHAGAT FAUJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner vide which her claim for interim maintenance, during the pendency of her application under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, has been declined. While declining the application the court has observed as hereunder :-

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has contended that in her application the petitioner has stated that she is a physically handicapped lady and has a handicap in one leg and arm. She has further stated that she needs a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month as rent and Rs. 1,000/- per month to keep a person to help her in her day to day activities and additionally an amount towards her daily expenses. Thus he states that observations made by the trial court that she has not made sufficient pleadings regarding her inability to maintain herself are against the averments made in the application and are not correct. Even though learned counsel concedes that it has not been specifically stated in the application that she does not have funds to meet the aforesaid expenses yet the tenor of the application shows that it is her case that she has no money to meet the aforesaid expenses and hence needs maintenance for the said purpose. Learned counsel further states that the order made by the court should be set aside and the matter remanded back for fresh determination keeping in view the averments made in para 5 of the application.

(3.) HAVING gone through the order, I am of the opinion that the claim for interim maintenance has not been considered by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hansi on merits. Rather the claim has been declined only on the ground that proper pleadings have not been made by the petitioner in her claim petition. However keeping in view the averments made by the petitioner in para 5 of the claim petition I am of the opinion that the petitioner has stated the facts constituting the basis of the claim to maintenance. Still further the tenor the application filed by her shows that she has claimed that she has no money to maintain herself. Therefore I am of the opinion that the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the matter remanded back to the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hansi to re-decide the matter on merits keeping in view the averments made by the petitioner in para 5 of the petition.