Randhir Singh and Another vs Karamjeet Kaur and Others

Alok Singh, J.—Present petition is filed challenging the order dated 22.12.2009 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Nabha, whereby application moved by the Petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC seeking impleadment in a suit was dismissed.

Brief facts of the present case are that Plaintiffs-Respondents No. 1 and 2 herein have filed one suit u/s 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act (for brevity ''the Act'') claiming maintenance from the Defendant-Respondent No. 3 herein claiming themselves to be a wife and daughter of Respondent No. 3. In a suit filed by wife and daughter against husband-father i.e. Respondent No. 3, Petitioners claiming themselves to be brothers of Respondent No. 3-Defendant moved an application seeking impleadment contending therein that unnecessarily their share in the property mentioned in the plaint is being charged with the maintenance. Learned trial Court vide impugned order rejected the impleadment application having observed that any order of maintenance passed against Ram Singh will affect the share of Ram Singh only and if Randhir Singh and Sukhwinder Singh are able to prove their joint ownership to be coparceners, their share in property cannot be held liable for the liability of Ram Singh qua his wife and daughter in the present petition.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

In a suit filed by wife and daughter against the husband and father claiming maintenance u/s 18 of the Act, brothers and other family members of the husband are neither necessary nor property party. The only apprehension of brothers of the Defendant that their share would be affected by the charge created over the property for the maintenance seems to be mere baseless apprehension in view of the observations made by learned trial Court as re-produced hereinabove. In view of this, order impugned does not require any interference.

Petition is dismissed.