Judgment M.M.Kumar, J. 1. The petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity the Code) is directed against the order dated 17.1.2002 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala, granting maintenance to the respondent-wife at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per month from the date of filing of the application despite the fact that the application of the respondent-wife filed under Order 33 Rule 1 of the Code, seeking permission of the Court to sue as an indigent person is pending. 2. Brief facts of the case necessary for disposal of the instant petition are that the respondent-wife filed an application under Order 33 Rule 1 of the Code on her own behalf as well as on behalf f her minor son, seeking permission to, sue the petitioner-husband for recovery of Rs. 2,70,000/- as an amount of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 7500/-per month (Rs. 5,000/- for herself and Rs. 2500/- for the minor son) for the period from September 21, 1998 to August 31, 2001 for three years and her future maintenance from September 1, 2001 and the same rate. During the pendency of the application to sue as an indigent person, the respondent-wife filed an application for the grant of interim maintenance. The application for interim maintenance has been opposed by the petitioner-husband although the facts regarding marriage and birth of the child have been admitted. He has claimed that the respondent-wife is quarrelsome and short tempered lady. He has further claimed that she has herself withdrawn from the society of the petitioner-husband although he is keen to live with her. It is further alleged that she was prosecuted under Sections 107/151 of the Criminal Procedure Code, alongwith her relatives and she was on bail. The petitioner-husband further pleaded that he has been working as a Senior Assistant in Haryana Roadways and drawing Rs. 4565/- per month as salary. The Civil Jude allowed the application and operative part of the order passed by him reads as under:- "The question which begs for an answer in these circumstances is as to whether the applicants, are entitled for ad-interim maintenance. 4565/- per month as salary. The Civil Jude allowed the application and operative part of the order passed by him reads as under:- "The question which begs for an answer in these circumstances is as to whether the applicants, are entitled for ad-interim maintenance. Notwithstanding innocent posture adopted by the respondent based on mere denials, it has to be borne in mind that the no oriental wife, much less an Indian wife and that also a mother of a child forsakes her matrimonial home for no reasons. A Hindu wife is to be maintained by her husband and where the husband fails to discharge the obligation of maintaining his wife, the wife can enforce her right to maintenance by instituting an appropriate action. Having concluded that Anita Rani is residing separately from the respondents, it is admitted by the respondent that he is earning Rs. 4565/- per month and there is no absolute evidence on file to prove that applicant is earning hand. I see no reason to disbelieve that the applicant No. 1 is unable to maintain herself. I do not find any merit in the contentions made by the ld. counsel for the respondent that the applicant No. 1 is not entitled for ad interim maintenance. 6. Admittedly the applicant No. 2 has become major during the pendency of the suit. Therefore, no interim maintenance is granted to him as under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 the maintenance can only be granted to minor children. 7. Keeping in view life style of parties and their earning capacities as assessed above and reckoning currently soaring prices of bare necessities of daily wife which include food, medicines, clothes and other unforeseen expenses with special references to needs of applicant, the respondent is ordered to pay maintenance allowance to the applicant No. 1 at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per month from the date of the filing of the application. Application under reference is ordered to be dismissed against applicant No. 2". 3. Mr. Vimal Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner-husband has argued that this Court has taken a consistent view holding that during the pendency of an application under Order 33 Rule 1 of the Code, permitting the respondent-wife to pursue her suit as an indigent person, no order granting maintenance could be passed in her favour. 3. Mr. Vimal Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner-husband has argued that this Court has taken a consistent view holding that during the pendency of an application under Order 33 Rule 1 of the Code, permitting the respondent-wife to pursue her suit as an indigent person, no order granting maintenance could be passed in her favour. He has placed reliance on the judgments of this Court reported as Mohan Singh v. Mohinder Kaur, 1977 Hindu Law Reporter 268, Sadaugar Singh v. Smt. Harbhajan Kaur and Ors., (1977)79 P.L.R. 506, Dr. Devinder Singh v. Harminder Kaur, A.I.R. 1984 Punjab & Haryana 40, and Makhan v. Jaagdish Kaur and Ors., (1991-2)100 P.L.R. 324. 4. Mr. Atul Jain, learned counsel for the respondent-wife has placed reliance on the judgments of this Court Sukhminder Singh v. Baljeet Kaur, 1999(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 652 (P&H) wherein the aforementioned judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner-husband have been considered in detail. The learned counsel for the respondent-wife has also placed reliance on the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Indira Sonti v. Suryanarayana Murti Sonti and Anr., judgment of Gujarat High Court in Aman Kumar Lalibai Parekh v. Pritiben Amankumar Parekh, 1992(2) H.L.R. 658. 5. I have thoughtfully considered the rival contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties. On a close examination, I find that the judgments in the cases of Mohan Singh (supra), Saudagar Singh (supra) and Dr. Devinder Singh (supra) represent the proposition that the Civil Judge during the pendency of an application under Order 33 Rule 1 of the Code has no jurisdiction to pass an interim order for grant of interim maintenance because of absence of adjudication on the rights of the respondent-wife to sue. Such an order is considered without jurisdiction presumably on the rationale that the suit of the wife is yet to commence as her application under Order 33 Rule 1 is pending. The other view is taken by a Single Bench of this Court in the case of Sukhminder Singh (supra) in which reliance has been placed upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Puran Singh and Ors. v. Mst Har Kaur and Anr., 1972 C.L.J. 648. The other view is taken by a Single Bench of this Court in the case of Sukhminder Singh (supra) in which reliance has been placed upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Puran Singh and Ors. v. Mst Har Kaur and Anr., 1972 C.L.J. 648. The view taken in Sukhminder Singhs case (supra) appears to be plausible as all the judgments cited for the contrary view in Mohan Singhs case (supra), Saudagar Singhs case (supra) and Dr. Devinder Singhs case (supra), have been taken into consideration. The aforementioned view of the learned Single Judge reads as under:- "4. A Single Judge of this Court in Sukhdev Singh and Ors. v. Sham Kaur, (1972) 74 P.L.R. 850, held that the Court can grant interim maintenance during the pendency of the suit under Section 18 of the Act. A Division Bench of this Court in Puran Singh and Ors. v. Mst. Har Kaur and Anr., 1972 C.L.J. 648 held that it cannot be said that the order of trial Court granting maintenance is without jurisdiction. Thus/the decision of the Division Bench of this Court is binding on me. Therefore, the decisions rendered by the Single Judge of this Court in Dr. Devinder Singhs case (supra) and Makhan Singhs case (supra) are contrary to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court. I am bound by the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court. 5. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no interim maintenance can be granted during the pendency of the application for permission to file the suit as an indigent person. This can never be disputed nor doubted that once the permission is granted, the filing of the suit will relate back to the date of presentation of the application for permission to file the suit as an indigent person and not on the date when the application is numbered and registered as a suit. In this connection, reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Jugal Kishore v. Dhanno Devi, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 2508. The doctrine of maintenance to the wife sprang from her matrimonial tie and obligates the husband to maintain his wife during his life time regardless of his possessing any property. In this connection, reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Jugal Kishore v. Dhanno Devi, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 2508. The doctrine of maintenance to the wife sprang from her matrimonial tie and obligates the husband to maintain his wife during his life time regardless of his possessing any property. Such moral obligation has made a legal liability since it arose under the very nature of relationship that existed between the Hindu male members and depends. It can be enforced even against the heirs of the Hindu deceased in whose possession the assets of the deceased have been." I am further of the view that there is ample support for the aforementioned proposition adopted by the learned Single Judge in Sukhminder Singhs case (supra). The Supreme Court in the case of M.L Sethi v. R.P. Kapoor, A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 2379 decided the question as to whether the Court has jurisdiction during the pendency of an application under Order 33 Rule 1 to issue interim orders. Their Lordships were considering the validity of an order passed by the trial Court allowing an application for discovery of documents which the High Court had reversed during the pendency of an application under Order 33, Rule 1 of the Code, On the rationale that the suit is deemed to have commenced on the date an application to forma pauperis has been filed, their Lordships observed as under:- "4.... In Vijay Pratrap Singh v. Dukh Haran Nath Singh, (1962) Supp 2 S.C.R. 675: A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 941, this Court has held "the suit commences from the moment an application for permission to sue in forma pauperis as required by Order 33 is presented". If that be so, the provisions of Rule 12 of Order 11 relating to discovery would in terms apply to proceedings under Order 33. There is also no reason why, if the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10 relating to additions of parties, of Order 9 dealing with appearance of parties and consequence of non-appearance and of Order 39 relating to temporary injunction would apply to proceedings under Order 33 the provisions in Order 11 dealing with discovery of documents should not apply to such proceedings. In England, discovery is ordered in any cause or matter in the Supreme Court to which the rules of the Supreme Court apply. In England, discovery is ordered in any cause or matter in the Supreme Court to which the rules of the Supreme Court apply. And cause includes any action, suit or other original proceeding between a plaintiff and defendant. Generally speaking, discovery is granted there in all proceedings except purely criminal proceedings, and civil proceedings where the action is brought merely to establish a forfeiture or enforce a penalty, Halsburys Laws of England, Vol.12 P.2. There is no reason to hold, if costs could be saved, that it is not salutary to resort to the procedure in proceedings under Order 33". 6 The above view amply supports the proposition that the moment an application in forma paupers is presented it is commencement of the suit, accordingly the provisions under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 for granting interim relief would also become available. Therefore, the view taken by the learned Single Judge in Sukhminder Singhs case (supra) has to be followed and it has to be held that the impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmity. Even otherwise, it is well settled that a wife can not be denied maintenance and it is an obligation cast on the husband to maintain her. The dismissal of the application to sue in forma pauperis under Order 33 Rule 1 would be of no con sequence because the obligation to maintain he wife has to be discharged by the husband. Therefore, the petitioner-husband cannot escape the liability by raising an argument of lack of jurisdiction. For the reasons recorded above, this petition fails and the same is dismissed.