IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA FAO No. 60 of 2023 Date of Decision: July 18, 2023 Mohan Lal . ….Applicant.

Versus Kanta Devi & others ..Respondents.

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Sing h Thakur, Judge.

Whether approved for reportintg?1 For the Appellant: Mrr.Naveen K. Bhardwaj, Advocate.

For the Respondent: uMr.Maan Singh, Advocate.

Vivek Singh Thakur, J (Oral)

This appeal has been preferred against order dated

27.02.2023, whereby application filed by the respondent-plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 Code of Civil Procedure (in short ‘CPC’) has been allowed and appellant-defendant has been restrained from alienating the property till disposal of main suit.

2. The respondent has filed a suit for creating charge on the suit property for her maintenance claim with prayer of injunction restraining the appellant alienating, transferring the suit property or creating charge thereon. Respondent has initiated proceedings against appellant under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (in short ‘D.V.

Act’).

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

3. Ground for assailing impugned order is that for payment of maintenance, appellant has no other source except the land under reference and for payment of any amount to the respondent, appellant has to sell out the propert.y and in case restraint order is continued, he shall not be able to sell the property and to pay the maintenanc e allowance to the respondent.

4. Apprehension in the suit as well as application preferred by the respondent is that for depriving the respondent from her lawful maintenance, appellant may sell out the property under reference.

5. The said apprehension is substantiated by the stand of the appellant. Ground taken by the appellant for assailing the impugned order is clearly depicting the intention of the appellant that he is inclined to dispose of the property.

6. I have gone through the impugned order, wherein pleas raised by the appellant have been well considered and I do not find any material illegality, irregularity or perversity in the impugned order. Accordingly appeal is dismissed.

7. Needless to say, as the respondent has obtained restraint order for protecting her right of maintenance, in case of requirement of sale or disposing of the property in question, or transfer the same to the respondent for or in lieu of maintenance, appellant shall have liberty to file appropriate application for modification of the order which shall be considered and decided by the Trial Court on its own merit.

Appeal stands disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any. (Vivek Singh Thakur), J.udge.

July 18, 2023 (Purohit)