P.S.PATWALIA,J - (1.) THE present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner vide which her claim for interim maintenance, during the pendency of her application under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, has been declined. While declining the application the court has observed as hereunder :- "Then it is not the case of petitioner that maintenance she is already getting vide order dated 28.11.1987 is insufficient for her, due to which she has filed the instant suit. In my opinion, only when the petitioner would have pleaded that she is unable to maintain herself with the maintenance granted under Section 125 Cr.P.C., then only she should have filed the present suit. On the top of above, the petitioner has not even pleaded that she has no source of income to meet her day to day need and expenses. Unless and until the petitioner pleads that she has no source of income or unable to maintain herself with the available source of income, no cause of action arise to her to file suit for maintenance, what to say of application for grant of interim maintenance."
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has contended that in her application the petitioner has stated that she is a physically handicapped lady and has a handicap in one leg and arm. She has further stated that she needs a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month as rent and Rs. 1,000/- per month to keep a person to help her in her day to day activities and additionally an amount towards her daily expenses. Thus he states that observations made by the trial court that she has not made sufficient pleadings regarding her inability to maintain herself are against the averments made in the application and are not correct. Even though learned counsel concedes that it has not been specifically stated in the application that she does not have funds to meet the aforesaid expenses yet the tenor of the application shows that it is her case that she has no money to meet the aforesaid expenses and hence needs maintenance for the said purpose. Learned counsel further states that the order made by the court should be set aside and the matter remanded back for fresh determination keeping in view the averments made in para 5 of the application. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that she has sufficient source of income and also has an agriculture land from out of which she can easily maintain herself. He therefore submits that the impugned order does not warrant any interference.
(3.) HAVING gone through the order, I am of the opinion that the claim for interim maintenance has not been considered by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hansi on merits. Rather the claim has been declined only on the ground that proper pleadings have not been made by the petitioner in her claim petition. However keeping in view the averments made by the petitioner in para 5 of the claim petition I am of the opinion that the petitioner has stated the facts constituting the basis of the claim to maintenance. Still further the tenor the application filed by her shows that she has claimed that she has no money to maintain herself. Therefore I am of the opinion that the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the matter remanded back to the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hansi to re-decide the matter on merits keeping in view the averments made by the petitioner in para 5 of the petition.;