MAJOR SINGH Vs. MOHINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - Respondent Mohinder Kaur claiming to be widow of a predeceased son of Piara Singh (who died after the filing of the plea under Order 33 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and is represented by his wife, a son and three daughters as legal representatives) filed an application for the award of interim maintenance in terms of provisions of Section 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

(2.) THAT plea of hers was allowed by the learned Trial Court, pending consideration of the plea for being allowed to sue in forma pauperis. In that context, learned Trial Judge held that the transfer of the entire agricultural holding of Piara Singh in the name of Major Singh (vide transfer deed dated 22.3.2004) was "to defeat the rights of the applicant particularly when the alleged conduct of the application has been mentioned in the Transfer Deed itself."

(3.) THE plea is denuded of merit. It was held in Smt. Gian Devi v. Shri Amar Nath Aggarwal etc., ILR 1975(1) Delhi 811 that such a request could be allowed even during the pendency of the application to sue in forma pauperis. Relevant observations made by the Delhi High Court, in the context, are reproduced as under for facility of reference :- "Applicant, an aged and forlorn woman of 76 years, filed a suit for maintenance in forma pauperis and during pendency of the application for permission to sue in forma pauperis, she applied for grant of interim maintenance. The question before the Court was whether interim maintenance could be granted to her. HELD also, that it is the duty of the Court to protect the interest of the applicant even at this stage of the proceedings, even though it is an interlocutory application and even though the application is still to be adjudicated upon for the purposes of finding out whether the applicant is entitled to sue in forma pauperis."