Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 235 (PNJ)

Raunaki v. Maya

2004-02-26

M.M.KUMAR

body2004
Judgment M.M.Kumar, J. 1. This petition filed under Section 115 CPC prays for quashing order dated 11.10.2002 passed by the Civil Judge, Panchkula for granting maintenance to the respondents under Section 19, 21, 22 and 23 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. Plaintiff-respondent No. 1. Smt. Maya, is widow of Gurdial Singh son of petitioner No. 1 Chaudhary Raunaki and Sister-in-law of Krishan. Plaintiff-respondents No. 2 to 4 are the children of respondent No. 1 Smt. Maya and deceased Gurdial. The Civil Judge has granted Rs. 500/- to each of the plaintiff-respondents as maintenance by holding as under:- "Keeping in view the case laws cited by learned counsel for the plaintiffs, it is well established that the defendants are liable to pay interim maintenance allowance to the plaintiffs. Moreover, keeping in view the jamabandi placed on file it reveals that the defendants have sufficient means to pay the said allowance. Hence, the application in hand is hereby allowed. Accordingly, the defendants are directed to pay Rs. 500/-jointly to the each of the plaintiffs from the date of application till final decision-of the main application. The application accordingly stands disposed of. Now to come up on 22.1.2003 for payment of maintenance as well as for framing of issues." 2. Mr. Vikas Suri, learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the trial court has taken into consideration all irrelevant documents as is evident from the perusal of these documents, which are annexed as Annexures P-1, P-3, P-4 and P-5. According to the learned counsel, these documents have no connection with the petitioners or the deceased Gurdial Singh. Therefore, no reliance could have been placed on those documents. Learned counsel has, however, accepted that there is 1/14th share of the petitioner in the Coparcenary property sold vide sale deed Annexure P-2 in 1999 and a sum of Rs. 32,000/- has fallen to their share. It is also not disputed that petitioner No. 2 Krishan son of Chaudhary Raunaki is employed as a Peon in General Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh. According to the learned counsel, petitioner No. 1 is an old man of 70 years and petitioner No. 2 has his own family and children to look after. Therefore, the award of maintenance to the tune of Rs. 500/- per son would amount to Rs. 2,000/- per month, which would be a huge burden on the petitioners. 3. Mr. According to the learned counsel, petitioner No. 1 is an old man of 70 years and petitioner No. 2 has his own family and children to look after. Therefore, the award of maintenance to the tune of Rs. 500/- per son would amount to Rs. 2,000/- per month, which would be a huge burden on the petitioners. 3. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that once it is established that Gurdial Singh has a share in coparcenary property, which has been sold vide Annexure P-2, then the petitioner cannot refuse to maintain her and her children. In support of the submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Jit Singh v. Gurmeet Kaur, (1999-2)122 P.L.R. 320. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the order, I am of the considered view that this petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. An amount of Rs. 2,000/- for four persons is not excessive or unreasonable especially when it has been shown that vide Annexure P-2, the husband of respondent No. 1 has a coparcenary share in the property. It is well settled that a widow is entitled to claim maintenance if her deceased husband at the time of his death was a shareholder in the coparcenary property. In this regard reliance could be placed on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Jai Kaur v. Pala Singh, A.I.R. 1961 Punjab 391 and Jit Singhs case (supra). 5. It is pertinent to notice that the contentions raised by Mr. Suri with regard to documents Annexures P-1, P-3, P-4 and P-5 have been disputed by the counsel for the respondents. Since the civil suit is pending, no final opinion could be expressed on those documents. The trial Court shall dispose of the civil suit expeditiously. Dismissed.