JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri R.S. Gupta, learned counsel for defendant-appellant (herein after referred as ‘appellant’). Even in the revised list, none is present on behalf of plaintiffs-respondents (herein after referred as ‘respondents’), despite sufficient service upon them. 2. This first appeal has been filed under Section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act, 1984’) against judgment and decree dated 22.4.2000 passed by Judge, Family Court, Azamgarh, in Original Suit No. 52 of 1996, whereby suit of plaintiff was partly decreed and Km. Jhuluri, respondent No. 2 was granted Rs. 2000/- as maintenance and legal expenses from June, 1980 to March, 1990 within one month from the date of order and regular payment of maintenance @ Rs. 500/- per month up to 10th of every month. 3. Filing of paper book by appellant is exempted vide order dated 2.4.2015. 4. Brief facts as transpire from record are that respondents filed Original Suit No. 52 of 1996 against appellant in Family Court, Azamgarh for grant of maintenance. Appellant appeared before learned Lower Court and contested suit by filing of written statement and adducing evidence. 5. On 31.8.1996, Court below has framed following issues : 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for maintenance allowances as claimed? 2. Whether the plaintiffs are dependent of opposite party Phirtu ? 3. Whether property can be charged for realization of maintenance belonging to Phirtu ? 4. To what relief, if any one, the plaintiff entitled ? 6. To prove her case, respondents examined Km. Jhuluri as P.W.1 and in documentary evidence filed certified copy of Khatauni paper No. 9-C of Village Sohari and copy of Kutumb Register of Village Khalispur, while appellant has examined himself as D.W.1 and his wife Smt. Prabhawati as D.W.2 and in the documentary evidence, he filed certified copy of Kutumb Register of Village Khalispur, paper No. 48-C. 7. After considering evidence and material available on record, Court-below has recorded findings to the effect that respondent No. 1 Smt. Durgawati is not legally wedded wife of appellant Phirtu and Km. Jhuluri respondent No. 2 is illegal daughter of appellant Phirtu. On the basis of above findings, Trial Court held that respondent No. 1, Smt. Durgawati, is not entitled to get any maintenance from appellant but being his minor illegitimate daughter and dependent on appellant, Km. Jhuluri respondent No. 2 is illegal daughter of appellant Phirtu. On the basis of above findings, Trial Court held that respondent No. 1, Smt. Durgawati, is not entitled to get any maintenance from appellant but being his minor illegitimate daughter and dependent on appellant, Km. Jhuluri is entitled to get maintenance from appellant and accordingly decided issue No. 1 and 2 partly in favour of respondents. 8. On the issue No. 3, learned trial Court has recorded findings to the effect that no argument was advanced to justify attachment of appellant’s property for maintenance or creating any charge on that for payment of maintenance. Accordingly, issue No. 3 was decided against respondents. 9. While deciding issue No. 4, learned trial Court has recorded findings to the effect that on the basis of evidence, it is proved that Smt. Durgawati is not legally wedded wife of appellant Phirtu and therefore, she is not entitled to get any maintenance from the appellant. It is also proved that Km. Jhuluri is a minor and illegitimate daughter of appellant, in this capacity, she is entitled to get maintenance from appellant. Accordingly, learned Lower Court has decided that issue in terms that respondent No. 1 Smt. Durgawati is not entitled to get any maintenance from appellant, while respondent No. 2 Km. Jhuluri is entitled to get maintenance @ Rs. 500/- per month from appellant, she was also granted a lump-sum payment of Rs. 2000/- towards maintenance and legal expenses for the period from June 1989 to March, 1990. As such, issue No. 4 is decided in favour of respondent No. 2, accordingly suit filed by respondents is partly decreed. 10. Feeling aggrieved by judgment and decree of Trial Court, appellant has filed, this appeal for quashing of impugned judgment and decree. 11. We have considered arguments raised on behalf of appellant and perused record. 12. Learned counsel for appellant urged as follows : 12. 1 Respondents miserably failed to prove their case that respondent No. 1 is married to appellant and from their wedlock/union, respondent No. 2 namely Jhuluri was born. 12.2 To prove their case, a forged copy of Kutumb Register pertaining to village/family of the appellant was filed on behalf of respondents which, was neither issued nor proved in accordance with law, even then Court below wrongly relied it and held that respondent No. 2 is illegitimate daughter of appellant. 12.2 To prove their case, a forged copy of Kutumb Register pertaining to village/family of the appellant was filed on behalf of respondents which, was neither issued nor proved in accordance with law, even then Court below wrongly relied it and held that respondent No. 2 is illegitimate daughter of appellant. 12.3 Copy of Kutumb Register is not admissible in evidence to prove the fact that respondent No. 2 is an illegitimate issue of the appellant in absence of any scientific DNA test etc., 12.4 Court below ignored from consideration copy of Kutumb Register filed by appellant pertaining to his family, issued in accordance with law, which does not contain names of respondents and belied relationship of wife and daughter of respondents with appellant thus, Court below committed palpable error of law in holding respondent No. 2 as illegitimate daughter of appellant. 12.5 Respondent No. 1 has neither turned in witness box nor examined any witness to prove her case that appellant and respondent No. 1 ever lived together as husband and wife and were treated as such by member of the society concerned and out of their union, respondent No. 2 Jhuluri was born, still Court below wrongly placed reliance on sole oral testimony of respondent No. 2 who was not supposed to be in the knowledge of plaint case, at the time of filing of it, on account of being then minor. 12.6 Respondent No. 2 could not be a proper and competent witness to prove marriage of her mother, respondent No. 1, with appellant and her being born out of their wedlock/union but Court below committed palpable error of law in placing reliance on her sole oral testimony without its support by any other witness much less competent witness. The suit of respondents was bound to fail on account of non disclosure of the law/act under which suit claiming maintenance was filed. 12.7 Under law pertaining to maintenance, maintenance is not legally awardable without a finding of Court to the effect that defendants claimants are unable to maintain themselves from property of parents at their disposal particularly in view of evidence on record to effect there is agriculture property in name of father of her mother who has no male issue but Court below went away in awarding maintenance to the respondent No. 2 without recording such a finding. 12.7 In-fact, suit for maintenance was not filed by respondents from their free volition rather same has been got filed by father of respondent No. 1 and his nephew namely Hardwari with ulterior motive for the reason that plaintiff No. 1 was/is mentally incapable to file said suit being illiterate and rustic mentally retired coupled with congenital dumbness and hence the suit itself to consider this vital aspect of matter. 12.8 The amount of maintenance is excessive vis-a-vis the income and liability of appellant. The impugned judgment is based on conjectures and surmises. Learned Court below wrongly shifted burden of proof on appellant relating to Kutumb Register filed by respondent No. 2. 12.9 The facts and evidence on record were not properly appreciated/considered by Court below rendering judgment to be illegal, improper and vitiated. Even otherwise too, the judgment of Court below is bad in law hence unsustainable. 13. Following questions crop-up for consideration of this Court for proper disposal of this appeal: 1. Whether impugned order is bad in law, due to non entering of respondent No. 1 Smt. Durgawati in witness-box ? 2. Whether respondent No. 2 Km. Jhuluri is competent witness ? 3. Whether impugned judgment and decree is sustainable in eyes of law ? 14. Question No. 1- is about effect of non appearance of respondent No. 1 Smt. Durgawati as witness to prove her case. Km. Jhuluri P.W.1 has specifically stated in her evidence that her mother Smt. Durgawati is dumb and unable to speak anything. Even appellant as D.W.1 has admitted in his evidence that Smt. Durgawati is a mentally weak woman. Co-plaintiff Km Jhuluri is examined as witness on behalf of respondents to prove case of respondents and has also faced cross-examination. 15. It is not case of appellant that Km. Jhuluri could not properly answer any question asked to her which may be replied only by Smt. Durgawati and due to non examination of Smt. Durgawati, defence of appellant is seriously prejudiced. 16. In these facts and circumstances of case, we are of the view that non examination of Smt. Durgawati as witness has no adverse effect on the case of respondents. Accordingly question No. 1 is decided in favour of respondents. 17. Question No. 2- is in respect of competency of Km. Jhuluri as witness. 16. In these facts and circumstances of case, we are of the view that non examination of Smt. Durgawati as witness has no adverse effect on the case of respondents. Accordingly question No. 1 is decided in favour of respondents. 17. Question No. 2- is in respect of competency of Km. Jhuluri as witness. That may be seen in the light of provisions of Section 118 and 120 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which read as follows : “118. Who may testify.—All persons shall be competent to testify unless the Court considers that they are prevented from understanding the questions put to them, or from giving rational answers to those questions, by tender years, extreme old age, disease, whether of body or mind, or any other cause of the same kind. Explanation.—A lunatic is not incompetent to testify, unless he is prevented by his lunacy from understanding the questions put to him and giving rational answers to them. 120. Parties to civil suit, and their wives or husbands. Husband or wife of person under criminal trial.—In all civil proceedings the parties to the suit, and the husband or wife of any party to the suit, shall be competent witnesses. In criminal proceedings against any person, the husband or wife of such person, respectively, shall be a competent witness.” 18. Km. Jhuluri told her age 17 years on the date of her statement i.e., 4.8.1999, she is co-plaintiff in Original Suit No. 52 of 1996, wherein impugned judgment and order has been passed. There is nothing on record to show that she is not understanding questions asked to her or properly not replying them. It is true that she is not eye-witness of marriage of her mother with Phirtu but certainly she is a competent witness to tell her parentage from her own knowledge even being minor on the date of filing of suit and on the date of her examination as witness. This is a common experience in the Indian society that after birth, at the very initial state, child first recognized mother then father and after that brother and sister etc. Therefore, if Km. Jhuluri has seen living with her mother and father together and was being treated as his daughter, then certainly she was fully competent witness to give evidence on those points. 19. Therefore, if Km. Jhuluri has seen living with her mother and father together and was being treated as his daughter, then certainly she was fully competent witness to give evidence on those points. 19. Otherwise also, learned Lower Court has not held that there is no evidence about how marriage of Smt. Durgawati took place with appellant Phirtu but held marriage illegal due to subsisting appellant’s first marriage with Smt. Prabhawati D.W.2 and Km. Jhuluri is minor illegitimate daughter of appellant. 20. For the reasons discussed above, we find Km. Jhuluri a competent witness and in the result, question No. 2 is decided in favour of respondent. 21. Question No. 3- is regarding sustainability of impugned judgment and decree. To get answer of above question, we have to make a close scrutiny of evidence led by parties and other necessary facts and circumstances of the case, which are being done herein after. 22. Km. Jhuluri, P.W.-1 has deposed in her evidence that her mother is a dumb woman and is unable to speak anything. Name of her mother is Durgawati Devi and father’s name is Phirtu Maurya. Both have married about 23-24 years ago according to Hindu ritual and rites. One sister of her mother (mausi) was married with her father Phirtu. Her maternal grand father is very poor. When her mother reached the age of marriage, then her father suggested her maternal grant-father that her mother is a dumb girl and due to that she cannot be married to any one thereafter she was married with Phirtu. After 4-6 years of their marriage, she was borne from their wed-lock. Her maternal grand-mother wrote her Bhumidhari land, situated in village Sohari in the name of her father Phiru. After sale-deed of land in his name, her father asked her mother to live there (i.e. nanihal of the witness). After that Phirtu has not brought them home and also stopped to give expenses. Phirtu also sold two Bigha land of Village Sohari and only one Bigha land remains there. Her father has not given any money to her and her mother from June 1989 for their expenses. Her father also has agricultural land in his native village and from that also he is earning Rs. 2,000/- per month. Her maternal grand-father and grand-mother were very old, rustic and illiterate persons. Her maternal grand-mother has died and only maternal grand-father is alive. Her father also has agricultural land in his native village and from that also he is earning Rs. 2,000/- per month. Her maternal grand-father and grand-mother were very old, rustic and illiterate persons. Her maternal grand-mother has died and only maternal grand-father is alive. Due to non payment of maintenance, suit for maintenance has been filed. 23. In her cross-examination, she has denied suggestion given to her on behalf of appellant that she was born with second husband of her mother Bhullan and told it right that she was born by relation of Smt. Durgawati and Phirtu. She has also denied suggestion to the effect that after leaving her mother by Bhullan due to mental weakness, she and her mother were living with her maternal grand-mother (Nani) and maternal grand-father (Nana). 24. Phirtu D.W..1 has stated in his evidence that Prabhawati is his married wife who is elder sister of Durgawati. He has four issues from his wed-lock with Prabhawati. He is neither married with Durgawati nor there is relation of husband and wife between them. Durgawati is first wife of Chaturi son of Tilakdhari, R/O Rampur Vankatla, District Azamgarh. After gauna he left Durgawati due to her mental weakness. After that she was second time married with Bhulan, son of Chunmun, R/O Village Lacchirampur, District Azamgarh. Plaintiff No. 2 is born with the wed-lock of Bhullan and Durgawati. Bhulan has also left Durgawati after keeping her in his home for one year. After leaving by Bhulan, she is living alongwith her daughter Jhuluri with her mother and father. This case was filed at the instance of Hardwari who has taken his father-in-law and Durgawati in his influence. His mother-in-law has willingly and with free will sold her land to him. He has not pressurized her to do so. There was no condition by his mother-in-law and father-in-law to keep Durgawati with him. He has no source of earnings. He is agricultural labour. Plaintiffs have no right to get any maintenance from him. 25. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he has not served his mother-in-law and father-in-law but only got the land written in his name. He has two Bigha agricultural land in Village Khalispur. By way of Koirar, he is earning Rs. 3,000-4,000/- but due to heavy rains and hails-stones, crops were ruined and he got nothing by Koirar. 25. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he has not served his mother-in-law and father-in-law but only got the land written in his name. He has two Bigha agricultural land in Village Khalispur. By way of Koirar, he is earning Rs. 3,000-4,000/- but due to heavy rains and hails-stones, crops were ruined and he got nothing by Koirar. At the time of sale-deed, he had paid Rs. 25,000/- which was managed by him from Koirar. Durgawati was living with her father. She is mentally weak. He has denied that the mother of Durgawati went to make sale-deed in favour of Durgawati but he obtained sale-deed in his name and Km. Jhuluri is born due to relations of Durgawati with him. He has also stated in his cross-examination that he is not giving expenses to Jhuluri rather Jhuluri and her mother were living in village Sohari and met out their expenses from the land which was purchased by him in Rs. 25,000/-. Durgawati is illiterate and Jhuluri is aged about 15-16 years. 26. Prabhawati D.W..2 wife of appellant Phirtu deposed in her evidence that she is married with Phirtu and Phirtu is not married with any other except to her. Due to her wed-lock with Phirtu, six issues were born among which two died and four are still alive. Durgawati is her younger sister. She was first time married in Vankatia and after being left from there subsequently, she was married in Lacchiram. Jhuluri was born in Lacchiram. In her cross-examination, stated that in her knowledge, Durgawati was not married with Phirtu. Her mother was selling her land which was purchased by making payment of Rs. 25,000/-. She has also stated that some money was arranged by selling ornaments and some was arranged by selling of vegetables. Her earlier statement regarding selling of ornaments in Rs. 25,000/- is wrong. She has also denied marriage of Phirtu with Smt. Durgawati. 27. Her mother was selling her land which was purchased by making payment of Rs. 25,000/-. She has also stated that some money was arranged by selling ornaments and some was arranged by selling of vegetables. Her earlier statement regarding selling of ornaments in Rs. 25,000/- is wrong. She has also denied marriage of Phirtu with Smt. Durgawati. 27. Prior to proceeding further it will be useful to take notice of following passages of evidence of appellant DW-1 and DW-2 - Prabhawati which reads as follows: Appellant Phirtu D.W.-1 at page 4: Þ&&&& >qyjh dk [kku [kpZ ugh nsrk gwWA cfYd >qyjh o mldh ekW ekStk lksgkjh es jgdj viuk ikyu iks"k.k mlh tehu ls djrh gS tks eS iphl gtkj :i;k cSukek es fn;k ml :i;s ls esjh lkl o llqj us ;U= ¼xq:eq[k½ fy;k rhFkZ ozr fd;sA nqxkZorh i<+h fy[kh ugh gS >qyjh dh mez 15&16 lky gSA nqxkZorh ls tc esjh 'kknh gqbZ mlds 15&16 lky ckn tehu fy[kh xbZA &&&&ß I don’t pay for Jhuluri’s fooding and other expenses. Rather, Jhuluri and her mother, by living at village Sohari, eke our their livelihood from that very land. Using Rs. 25,000 which I had given in course of the sale-deed, my parents-in-law took a yantra (gurumukh), went on pilgrimages and observed fasts. Durgawati is not educated and Jhuluri is aged 15-16 years. The sale-deed of the land was executed 15-16 years after I had married Durgawati. (English Translation by the Court).” 28. D.W.-2 Prabhawati stated in her evidence that in her knowledge Durgawati is not married with appellant Phirtu as is evident from following passage of her evidence. Smt. Prabhawati, D.W.-2 at page : Þ &&&& esjs tkurs nqxkZorh dh 'kknh fQjrw ls ugh gqbZA &&&&-ß As far as I know, Durgawati is not married to Phirtu. (English Translation by Court). 29. There is contradictions in evidence of D.W.1 Phirtu and D.W.2, i.e. his wife Prabhawati on the point that how money for payment to mother of respondent No. 1 for getting sale-deed of land was arranged. Not only this, above statement of DW-2, Prabhawati that in her knowledge Durgawati was not married with appellant Phirtu, affects her denial of marriage of Smt. Durgawati with appellant Phirtu. 30. Learned counsel for appellant has vehemently opposed reliance placed by learned Lower Court on certified copy of Kutumb Register produced by respondents. Not only this, above statement of DW-2, Prabhawati that in her knowledge Durgawati was not married with appellant Phirtu, affects her denial of marriage of Smt. Durgawati with appellant Phirtu. 30. Learned counsel for appellant has vehemently opposed reliance placed by learned Lower Court on certified copy of Kutumb Register produced by respondents. According to him it is a forged document which was neither properly issued nor duly proved. Learned Lower Court has also noticed that above copy is not proved but still placed reliance on that to determine Km. Jhuluri daughter of appellant. 31. Perusal of record reveals that copy of Kutumb Register filed by respondents and appellant was not duly proved. It is true that Court below has made reference of copy of Kutumb Register filed by respondents in which names of Smt. Durgawati and Km. Jhuluri are included as wife and daughter of appellant, respectively, and has also placed reliance on that, but it did not make any reference of copy of Kutumb Register filed by appellant in which names of respondents Smt. Durgawari and Km. Jhuluri are not included in the family of appellant. 32. In our view making of reference of copy of any Kutumb Register, both copies of Kutumb Register or no copy of Kutumb Register, will not make any difference in the findings of Court below in the light of admission of appellant in his cross-examination that Smt. Durgawari is his wife and meeting out their expenses by land of Village Sohari, which he has purchased for Rs. 25,000/- in his cross-examination. 33. We find no substance in augments of learned counsel for appellant to the effect that Trial Court has not recorded any finding that respondents Smt. Durgawati and Km. Jhuluri are unable to maintain themselves from the property of Jawahir, father of Smt. Durgawati, respondent No. 1, because Smt. Durgawati was not granted maintenance by the impugned judgment and decree on account of being illegal wife of Phirtu. The Court below has recorded a categorical finding that Km. Jhuluri is illegal daughter of appellant Phirtu and being minor, dependent on him. There is no law and logic that a person may seek shelter in respect of maintenance of his minor daughter from property of her father-in-law rather in all known norms he is himself responsible for maintenance of her minor daughter, though she may be illegitimate. 34. Jhuluri is illegal daughter of appellant Phirtu and being minor, dependent on him. There is no law and logic that a person may seek shelter in respect of maintenance of his minor daughter from property of her father-in-law rather in all known norms he is himself responsible for maintenance of her minor daughter, though she may be illegitimate. 34. We also find no substance in submissions of learned counsel for appellant that maintenance granted to Km. Jhuluri is excessive and in passing order of maintenance in favour of Km. Jhuluri, Trial Court has not given due weight to the responsibility of appellant because appellant Phirtu himself has admitted in his evidence that he earned Rs. 3,000/- to 4,000/- from Koirar and Km. Jhuluri also told in her evidence that appellant Phirtu has earned Rs. 2,000/- per month from his fields. Keeping in view the above facts, maintenance granted to Km. Jhuluri vide impugned judgment and decree dated 22.4.2000 @ Rs. 500/- per month cannot be said to be excessive in any way. 35. We are also not impressed with the arguments raised on behalf of appellant that maintenance case was filed against him, under influence of his father-in-law - Jawahir and her nephew, Hardwari (Bhanja) and also that Km. Jhuluri is daughter of alleged second husband, Bhullan, of Smt. Durgawati, because if this was the position then there was no occasion for respondent No. 1 to file false case against appellant, who is her real brother-in-law (Jija) and leaving her alleged real husband- Bhullan and alleged father of Km. Jhuluri, under alleged influence of her father and his nephew Hardwari without any sufficient reason. 36. There is also no force in arguments of learned counsel for appellant that Court below has not properly appreciated evidence and material available on record and without any sufficient evidence in support of respondent’s case partly decreed their suit and it has also not taken care that no other witness has been examined to corroborate evidence of Km. Jhuluri, a minor witness and partly decreed suit of respondents on solitary evidence of Km. Jhuluri without any corroboration of that by any other witness. As stated earlier, appellant has himself admitted his marriage with Smt. Durgawati, therefore, no further corroboration was required for Court below to accept his marriage with respondent No. 1 Smt. Durgawati and birth of Km. Jhuluri, a minor witness and partly decreed suit of respondents on solitary evidence of Km. Jhuluri without any corroboration of that by any other witness. As stated earlier, appellant has himself admitted his marriage with Smt. Durgawati, therefore, no further corroboration was required for Court below to accept his marriage with respondent No. 1 Smt. Durgawati and birth of Km. Jhuluri from that wedlock/union of Smt. Durgawati and appellant Phirtu. Otherwise also, in the light of evidence of parties referred above, we think no further corroboration of evidence of Km. Jhuluri is required. 37. It is settled law that quality of evidence is material and not the quantity. In this regard we may refer decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Veer Singh and others v. State of U.P., 2014 (1) ACR 333 (SC), in which the Court in para -17 held : “Legal system has laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence rather than on quality multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is not the number of witnesses but quality of their evidence which is important as there is no requirement under the Law of Evidence that any particular number of witnesses is to be examined to prove/disprove a fact. Evidence must be weighed and not counted. It is quality and not quantity which determines the adequacy of evidence has been provided under Section 134 of the Evidence Act. As a general rule the Court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable. (Vide : Vadivelu Thevar and another v. State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614 ; Kunju @ Balachandran v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2008 SC 1381 ; Bipin Kumar Mondal v. State of West Bengal, AIR 2010 SC 3638 ; Mahesh and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2011) 9 SCC 626 : 2012 (2) CCSC 618 (SC); Prithipal Singh and others v. State of Punjap and another, (2012) 1 SCC 10 : 2012 (1) CCSC 186 (SC); Kishan Chand v. State of Haryana, JT 2013 (1) SC 222 : 2013 (3) CCSC 1558 : 2013 (1) ACR 1105 (SC) and Gulam Sarbar v. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand), 2013 (12) SCALE 504). 38. Findings recorded by Court below are findings of fact and nothing has been brought before us to show that those findings are perverse or based on no evidence or otherwise erroneous. 38. Findings recorded by Court below are findings of fact and nothing has been brought before us to show that those findings are perverse or based on no evidence or otherwise erroneous. Therefore, there is no occasion for us to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree. 39. For the facts and reasons stated above, appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 40. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal and affirm impugned judgment and decree dated 22.4.2000 passed by Judge, Family Court, Azamgarh, in Original Suit No. 52 of 1996. 41. Parties shall bear their own costs. ———————