Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 409 (BOM)

Ramesh Ruplal Shahu v. Gunjan Ganesh Shahu

2009-03-25

S.R.DONGAONKAR

body2009
Judgment :- Heard Shri Bapat Advocate for petitioner and Shri Kariya, Advocate for respondent. Rule. Made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of parties. 2] By this petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking to challenge the order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Daryapur, District Amravati in Special Civil Suit No.3/2007 between the parties; below exhibit 8 by which the maintenance was granted to the respondents holding that they are issues from Shilabai born from Ganesh; the brother of petitioners. 3] Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the contents of the impugned order i.e. “It is also argued that recently said Shilabai has delivered a son after performing second marriage with Bablu Kanhaiyyalal Shahu. That, birth extract is at Exh.36/A on record. Admittedly, Shitalabai alias Shilabai cited as next friend of all the plaintiffs, who are minor”. According to learned counsel as Shilabi had delivered one son by performing second marriage, the liability of maintenance of respondents can not be fastened on the petitioner. According to him, there is no material on record to show that they are sons of Ganesh. 4] As against this, learned counsel for respondent has drawn my attention to the observations of the lower court: “The plaintiffs have filed death extract of deceased Ganesh Shahu. The said deceased Ganesh Shahu died near S.T. Stand particularly adjacent to Patel Saw Mill of Anjangaon Surji. The defendants contended that the plaintiffs are not the legal heirs of the deceased Ganesh Shahu. But there is birth extract of Ku.Rani, Ku. Seema showing the name of their father as Ganesh Ruplal Shahu. Apart from this, Head Master (Marathi School No.4) Municipal Council, Anjangaon Surju issued certificate that Rakesh son of Ganesh Shahu (Plaintiff No.2) is styding in third standard.Therefore, prima facie all these documents goes to show that the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of the deceased Ganesh Shahu.” 5] It will be seen that the respondents are stated to be sons of Ganesh Shahu. In the observations pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the other son is stated to be after performing second marriage with one Bablu Kanhaiyyalal Shahu. In the observations pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the other son is stated to be after performing second marriage with one Bablu Kanhaiyyalal Shahu. It is difficult to say that the respondents are not sons of deceased Ganesh, at this stage and therefore, in my opinion it is not possible to interfere with the impugned order in the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this court. 6] Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. The same is dismissed with no order as to costs.