Court No. - 3
Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 51 of 2017 Appellant :- Ram Nath Sharma Respondent :- Pushpa Devi Counsel for Appellant :- Mahendra Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- Dinesh Tiwari
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.
We have heard Sri Hari Pratap Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Dinesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent.
The plaintiff respondent moved an application under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 against her father in law appellant seeking maintenance.
The Family Court by the impugned judgment and order dated 29.9.2016 has allowed the above application and besides directing payment of Rs. 3,000/- per month as maintenance to her has directed the appellant to provide a separate room with Kitchen, a Bath Room and other amenities to her in the house.
Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant had already paid a lump sum amount of Rs. 8 lacs to the respondent and as such she is not entitle to any further maintenance or place of residence. The respondent is not a person who is unable to maintain herself.
The evidence on record clearly proves that the appellant is in possession of the dada lie (ancestral) property in which his son late Brijesh ie. the husband of the respondent had the share. He himself as DW-1 accepted that his father had 4-1/2 Bigha land and a house. The land was divided into plots and was given to all the three brothers. He had two sons Rajesh and Brijesh, the late husband of respondent. Khasra no. 131 belongs to him and that it consists of 250-300 sq. yards of land. Land of khasra no. 132 having an area of 0.0640 belongs jointly to him and his three brothers Satya Narayana, Amar Nath and Rishi Kumar. He had paid Rs. 8 lacs to the respondent out of the sale proceeds of his land khasra no.190 which he sold for Rs. 1 crore.
The aforesaid statement of the appellant clearly indicates that he is in possession of ancestral property wherein his deceased son also had some share.
The evidence further reveals that the allegation of the appellant that respondent is running a Beauty Parlour at the place of the residence of her parents is not established by any evidence on record. No evidence to prove that the respondent is having any independent income of her to maintain herself has been brought to our notice. Apart from the above, there is no evidence to establish that her parents are possessed of sufficient means to maintain her.
In addition to the above, even the allegation that a sum of Rs. 8 lacs was paid to the respondent is not established by any evidence.
In these circumstances we are of the opinion that the respondent is not in a position to maintain herself and even her parents are not in a position to maintain her. Therefore she has to fall upon the estate of her husband for maintenance as provided under Section 16 of the Act.
The appellant father in law of the respondent admittedly has two houses and about 250-300 sq. yard of land apart from other properties and therefore the respondent is entitled to be maintained from the said property.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find that any illegality has been committed by the Family Court in awarding maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month and one room portion with the Kitchen, Bath Room and other amenities to her out of the ancestral property in which her late husband had a share.
The appeal lacks merit and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 24.4.2018 SKS