SURINDER KUMAR MALIK Vs. YOGINDER KUMAR MALIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been directed against the order dated 15.5.1997 passed by Civil Judge (JD) Narnaul. By this order, the learned trial court has directed the petitioner to pay maintenance at Rs. 1000/- each to the respondents who are his children. This maintenance has been directed to be paid from the date of application i.e. 3.1.1997.

(2.) MR . Goel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is employed as a Master getting monthly salary of Rs. 6,400/- and the mother of the respondents (who is the wife of the petitioner) is also a JBT Teacher and is earning approximately Rs. 5500/- per month. He further submits that the learned trial court was not right in granting the interim maintenance as there is no provision for interim maintenance in the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the following judgments :

(3.) MR . Mittal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, however, submits that the application for interim maintenance was maintainable in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in ITO Cannanore v. M.K. Mohammad Punni, AIR 1969 SC 430. In this connection he has also placed reliance on a judgment of Delhi High Court in Smt. Neelam Malhotra v. Rajinder Malhotra, 1993(3) R.R.R. 577 : AIR 1994 Delhi 234 and a judgment of this Court in Kanvar Vishvajit Singh v. Nirmala Kanwar, 1991(2) PLR 277. The learned counsel also submits that one of the respondent is studying in 10+2 (Science medical group) and the other respondents is studying in Matric with science. He, therefore, contends that the amount of interim maintenance is not on the higher side.