Skip to content


Kulwant Kaur Alias Preeti Vs. Prem Nath - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Subject

Family

Court

Punjab and Haryana High Court

Decided On

Case Number

Civil Revision No. 4499 of 2000

Judge

Reported in

I(2002)DMC565

Acts

Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 - Sections 18, 18(1), 20 and 20(2); Constitution of India - Article 227

Appellant

Kulwant Kaur Alias Preeti

Respondent

Prem Nath

Appellant Advocate

Mrs. Kulwant Kaur, Adv.

Respondent Advocate

Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, Adv.

Excerpt:


- haryana urban(control of rent and eviction)act,1973[har.act no.11/1973] -- section 4(2)(b): [m.m. kumar, hemant gupta, ajay & kumar mittal, jj] determination of fair rent held, the fair rent of building under the section is to be determined on the basis of rent agreed between landlord and tenant preceding the date of application. in the absence of rent agreed between parties the basic rent is required to be determined on the basis of rent prevailing in locality for a similar building or rented land on the date of application. if on the date of filing of the application under section 4 of the act for determination of fair rent, the agreed rent was still in vogue thus, it has to be regarded as the basic rent and the same would be constituted as the basis for determining fair rent. thus, where rs.500/- was paid as rent by tenant to the landlord, the same would be regarded as agreed rate of rent and the agreed rate of rent has to be regarded as basic rent within the meaning of section 4(2)(b) of the act in the process of fixing fair rent irrespective of the fact whether the lease period stipulated in a lease deed has expired......present revision under article 227 of the constitution of india has been filed by smt. kulwant kaur alias preeti, styling herself to be the wife of prem nath, respondent no. 1, ramandeep alias prince, who is major and was born to smt. kulwant kaur from the loins of prem naih, respondent no. 1, and miss pooja deep, minor daughter born to smt. kulwant kaur from the loins of respondent no. 1 and it is directed against prem nath, so-called husband of smt. kulwant kaur, yash pal, vikram kumar, who are sons of prem nath bom from the womb of nirmala devi, who according to prem nath is his legally wedded wife.2. some facts can be noticed in the following manner :-the petitioners filed a petition under section 18 read with section 20 of the hindu adoption & maintenance act (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') in the court of civil judge (jr. division), ludhiana. during the pendency of those proceedings, they also filed an application for grant of interim maintenance. notice of the application was given to the respondents and after the contest vide order dated 29.5.1999 the learned civil judge (jr. division), ludhiana thought it proper not to award any interim maintenance till the main.....

Judgment:


R.L. Anand, J.

1. The present revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by Smt. Kulwant Kaur alias Preeti, styling herself to be the wife of Prem Nath, respondent No. 1, Ramandeep alias Prince, who is major and was born to Smt. Kulwant Kaur from the loins of Prem Naih, respondent No. 1, and Miss Pooja Deep, minor daughter born to Smt. Kulwant Kaur from the loins of respondent No. 1 and it is directed against Prem Nath, so-called husband of Smt. Kulwant Kaur, Yash Pal, Vikram Kumar, who are sons of Prem Nath bom from the womb of Nirmala Devi, who according to Prem Nath is his legally wedded wife.

2. Some facts can be noticed in the following manner :-The petitioners filed a petition under Section 18 read with Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Ludhiana. During the pendency of those proceedings, they also filed an application for grant of interim maintenance. Notice of the application was given to the respondents and after the contest vide order dated 29.5.1999 the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Ludhiana thought it proper not to award any interim maintenance till the main petition under Section 18 read with Section 20 of the Act is finally disposed of.

3. Not satisfied with the impugned order dated 29.5.1999, the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

4. Notice of the petition was given to the respondents who have contested the same hotly.

5. I have heard petitioner No. 3 Smt. Kulwant Kaur, who is incidentally a lawyer, on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, Advocate on behalf of the respondents and with their assistance have gone through the record of the case.

6. Section 18(1) of the Act lays down as follows :-

'Subject to the provisions of this Section, a Hindu wife, whether married before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be entitled to be maintained by her husband during her life time.'

7. It is the case of Smt. Kulwant Kaur that she is the wife of Prem Nath and she admitted herself before him and during the cohabitation she gave birth to Pooja Deep and Ramandeep alias Prince. This aspect of the case is being denied by Prem Nath, whose case is that Smt. Kulwant Kaur is not his legally wedded wife. Of course, he admits that Pooja Deep and Ramandeep were born to Smt. Kulwant Kaur from his loins. In short, Prem Nath contests the claim of Smt. Kulwant Kaur on the plea that she is not his legally wedded wife and, therefore, she is not entitled to any maintenance under Section 18 of the Act and more so she is not entitled to any interim maintenance.

8. The point will be adjudicated by the trial Court itself but one thing is very clear from the admission of Prem Nath that he cohabited with Smt. Kulwant Kaur. No sane lady would surrender herself unless she treats his male companion as her husband. Whether the marriage is legally proved or not that is a point to be determined by the trial Court itself. But keeping in view the fact that Smt. Kulwant Kaur had cohabited with Prem Nath, therefore, I am inclined to award interim maintenance to her.

9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that Smt. Kulwant Kaur is a practising lawyer and she earns to such an extent that she can maintain herself and her two children. On the contrary, Smt. Kulwant Kaur submits that though she is a lawyer but she is not a flourishing one and in the modern time it is very difficult for her to maintain herself as well as her two children. Admittedly, Ramandeep is major and Pooja Deep is minor. In this view of the matter I direct Prem Nath to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month by way of interim maintenance to Smt. Kulwant Kaur and this will be calculated from the date of the filing of the application under Section 18 read with Section 20 of the Act.

10. With regard to Ramandeep alias Prince this Court is not in a position to allow his interim maintenance because of the specific bar under Section 20(2) of the Act with lays down as under :-

'A legitimate or illegitimate child may claim maintenance from his or her father or mother so long as the child is a minor.'

11. Ramandeep alias Prince was bom on 10.11.1977. He became major in 1995 and the main petition under Section 18 read with Section 20 of the Act was filed in the year 1997 itself. Therefore, no interim maintenance is being granted to Ramandeep alias Prince. So far as the case of Pooja Deep is concerned, admittedly, she is minor. She is in the custody of her mother Kulwant Kaur who is looking after her. She is aged about 15 years and is a student of 10+1. Therefore, some interim arrangement has to be made for her also and I direct the respondent No. 1 Prem Nath to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month by way of interim maintenance and this amount shall also be calculated from the date of the application under Section 18 of the Act.

12. The learned counsel Smt. Kulwant Kaur submitted that directions may also be issued against Yash Pal, Vikram Kumar and Nirmala Devi in this regard since they are the partners and co-owners of the property with Prem Nath. This request of Smt. Kulwant Kaur cannot be accepted because the cause of action of the wife is against the husband and not anybody else.

13. In this view of the matter, this revision stands disposed of in the light of above directions.

14. It is hereby clarified that even if the main petition of the petitioners fails but they shall not refund the amount of interim maintenance.

15. Order accordingly.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //