( 1 ) "marriage is one long conversation, chequered by disputes" said so Robert L. Stevenson. It may or may not be the whole truth but there is no gainsaying the fact that it has got a grain of truth in it as is manifest from the facts of the present case.

( 2 ) PLAINTIFF No. 1 herein and the defendant No. 1 were married on 10th February, 1989. Plaintiff No. 2 was born on 18th March, 1991. She is six years of age. Plaintiffs and the defendant No. 1 used to live at their matrimonial home i. e. 24, Olof, Palme Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi till November, 1994. Defendants nos. 2 and 3 are the father and mother of defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 4 is the HUF with defendant No. 2 as the Manager thereof. The plaintiffs are also the members of the Hindu Undivided Family.

( 3 ) PLAINTIFF No. 1 took her mother in 1994 abroad in connection with her treatment. She returned with her ailing mother on 31st October, 1994. Defendant No. 1 met her at the Airport and apprised her of the fact that he had already moved out of his family home REFERRED TO to above and he did not want to live with her any more. Defendant No. 1 thus deserted the Plaintiff. Consequently, in view of the above changed circumstances, plaintiff No. 1 alongwith her daughter i. e. plaintiff No. 2 was forced to shift to the house of her parents. The mother of plaintiff No. 1 died on 10th November, 1994. In the above circumstances a family settlement was arrived at in between the parties to the present proceedings on 4th November, 1994 with a view to providing financial assistance to the plaintiff vide Annexure-A. The defendants have wilfully and deliberately defaulted in performing their part of obligation under the said settlement and in making the payments as agreed to in between the parties and to provide for the plaintiffs. The defendants have failed to provide the monthly maintenance to the plaintiff in terms of the said settlement from January, 1997 onwards. They have also defaulted in paying the school fees of the plaintiff No. 2. The plaintiffs are being put to a lot of inconvenience and hardships on account of defaults made by the defendants. Plaintiff No. 1 is a young lawyer and is working for a law firm. She is being supported by her father. Whereas plaintiff No. 2 has got almost none to support her. Hence arose the necessity for the presentation of the application under disposal under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for maintenance, being I. A. No. 11261/97.

( 4 ) THE defendants have opposed the said application interalia on the following grounds: that the plaintiffs have got no right to claim any maintenance from defendants nos. 2 to 4 during the life time of her husband i. e. defendant No. 1. Defendants nos. 2 to 4 are neither necessary nor proper parties to the present proceedings. The suit is bad for mis-joinder of causes of action, in the absence of any permission from the court to join the different causes of action in the present suit. The plaintiff No. 1 is claiming the relief of maintenance and separate residence. The said relief can only be granted to her only under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. For a relief of separate residence, plaintiff No. 1 has to plead and prove her case as per Section 18 (2) of the said Act. Plaintiff No. 1 has however failed to make out any case under the said Act for claiming maintenance and separate residence and the suit is thus without any cause of action. Hence the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The agreement dated 4th November, 1994 is void and cannot be specifically enforced inasmuch as the said settlement was induced by undue influence, coercion and duress. Furthermore, the said agreement is without any consideration. On return from England with her mother on 31st October, 1994, plaintiff No. 1 decided to go to her parents house instead of her matrimonial home. In fact she refused to accompany defendant No. 1. The marriage in be