VASDEV SINGH Vs. MISS PARMIN KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an unfortunate dispute between the father and the daughter who has been awarded interim maintenance during the pendency of the suit by the trial Court at the rate of Rs. 500 per month.

(2.) JOSINDER Kaur wife of Vasdev Singh, petitioner along with her daughter Parmin Kaur and her son Gurvin Singh have filed a suit for recovery of maintenance from Vasdev Singh defendant. In that suit, the on and the daughter filed an application for grant of interim maintenance alleging that both of them are college going students and have neither been employed nor have any source of income. Even the wife had no source of income but since she had been granted interim maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, though the same was not sufficient even to meet her requirements. It was further pleaded that Vasdev Singh defendant is earning Rs. 5 300 per month as Professor in the Punjab Engineering College Chandigarh, and was living in the Government accommodation in Sector 16, Chandigarh. In these circumstances, they prayed that they be granted Rs. 500 each during pendency of the case. The suit had been filed in forma pauperis. This application was contested on behalf of the defendant, inter alia, on the plea that both the said plaintiffs are major and are thus not entitled to any maintenance Moreover, they are living with their mother and were thus, not destitutes. They have been living with the defendant in a spacious Government accommodation and, therefore, were not entitled to any maintenance. However, the learned trial Court did not allow any maintenance to the son on the ground that he was no more minor but allowed Rs. 500 as interim maintenance to the daughter, in view of the provisions of Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintainance Act, 1956.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the defendant -petitioner vehemently contended that the suit has not so far been registered as the same has been filed in forma -pauperis and the application to determine as to whether the plaintiffs are indigent persons or not is still pending adjudication. Thus, argued the learned counsel, till the said 'application is decided the daughter plaintiff was not entitled to any interim maintenance. In support of 'this contention, he referred to the judgment of this Court reported as Dr. Devinder Singh Virk v. Smt. Harminder Kaur, 1963 HLR 465 : 1983(2) Recent C.R. 55. It was next contended that there was no provision for grant of interim maintenance in a suit of such a nature and, therefore, even after the decision of the said application no such interim maintenance could be granted. In support of this contention he referred to Ramchandra Behera and others v. Smt. Snehlata Devi, AIR 1977 Orissa 96 and Gorivellin Appanna v. Gorivelli Seethamma, AIR 1972 A.P. 62. It was also contended that since the daughter was no, more a minor she was entitiled to any maintenance as such.