Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

1. An interesting question has been raised in the instant appeal. The case originated from an application submitted by the minor son said to have been born from the alleged wedlock between Neha Nankani and late Sri Arjun Nankani. According to the application, as submitted under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”) on 27th October, 2007, the minor children of late Arjun Nankani, namely, Master Dharmesh Nankani, who was represented through his natural mother and guardian Neha Nankani, had claimed the benefit of maintenance under Section 18 of the Act.

Before venturing into the intricacies of the issues involved in the case, an interpretation of Section 18 (1) and

(2) is necessary Section 18 of the Act reads as under :-

“Section 18 -Maintenance of wife

(1) 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.

(2) A Hindu wife shall be entitled to live separately from her husband without forfeiting her claim to maintenance-

(a) if he is guilty of desertion, that is to say, of abandoning her without reasonable cause and without her consent or against her wish, or willfully neglecting her;

(b) if he has treated her with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in her mind that it will be harmful or injurious to live with her husband;

(c) if he is suffering from a virulent form of leprosy;

(d) if he has any other wife living;

(e) if he keeps a concubine in the same house in which his wife is living or habitually resides with a concubine elsewhere;

(f) if he has ceased to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion;

(g) if there is any other cause justifying her living separately.”

Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act deals with the grant of mandatory injunction against the party concerned; The concept of grant of mandatory injunction would be a concept to refrain a party from doing a particular act or to do an act as directed by the Court. Since, the Act of 1956 is self contained social legislation intended for the welfare of the claimants under it, Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act would not be applicable. The said analogy could be settled on the scrutiny of Section 38 itself which is quoted hereunder:

“38 -Perpetual injunction when granted. –

(1) Subject to the other provisions contained in or referred to by this Chapter, a perpetual injunction may be granted to the plaintiff to prevent the breach of an obligation existing in his favour, whether expressly or by implication.

(2) When any such obligation arises from contract, the court shall be guided by the rules and provisions contained in Chapter II.

(3) When the defendant invades or threatens to invade the plaintiff’s right to, or enjoyment of, property, the court may grant a perpetual injunction in the following cases, namely:-

(a) where the defendant is trustee of the property for the plaintiff;

(b) where there exists no standard for ascertaining the actual damage caused, or likely to be caused, by the invasion;

(c) where the invasion is such that compensation in money would not afford adequate relief;

(d) where the injunction is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of judicial proceedings.”

2. The application has been submitted by a minor son of the deceased father though her mother and natural guardian as revealed for the cause title of the application, it would be deemed that it was an application filed by the minor and not by the wife for the claim under Section 18 of the Act. Section 18 in itself only deals with the maintenance to be provided to a wife only. No maintenance to a son is contemplated under the said Section, hence, also the application is not tenable. To bring the claim within the ambit of Section 18 of the Act, the basic ingredients required are:-

1. Claimant has to be a Hindu wife.

2. Has to be married.

3. The term ‘marriage’ has not been define