CHAIN SINGH Vs. HARDEEP KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) - Respondent Hardeep Kaur filed a petition before the trial Court under Sec. 25 of the Hindu Guardian and Wards Act 1890(wrongly referred to as Hindu Guardian and Wards Act 1956) seeking maintenance from the appellant who is the father-in-law of the respondent.

(2.) It was submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that it may not be an impediment for the parties to canvas for relief before the Court, even if they have quoted wrong provision of law, but they should come out with proper pleadings concerning the relief sought.

(3.) As rightly pointed out by the trial Court, the respondent instead of quoting the provision under Sec. 19 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956 has wrongly referred in the petition the provision under Sec. 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act 1890. Of course, such wrong reference to the Act and provisions of law are really condonable inasmuch as the parties cannot be shown the doors simply on that score, but as rightly pointed out by the counsel appearing for the appellant, proper pleadings should be made to enable the other side to respond to the pleadings effectively.