Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 669 (MP)

Lakhan v. Archana Lodhi

2016-08-08

ANAND PATHAK

body2016
ORDER 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties matter is heard finally. 2. The present revision has been preferred against the order dated 29.1.2016 passed by Additional District Judge, Pichhore, district Shivpuri in Case No.14-A/2015 (HMA); whereby ,the application preferred by the respondents under section 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 has been allowed and petitioner has been fastened with the liability of payment of Rs. 8,000/- per month to the respondents, who happen to be his daughter-in-law and grand children. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner had drawn attention of this Court over a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of Chhattishgarh High Court in the case of Dayali Sukhlal Sahu v. Smt. Anju Bai Santosh Sahu [AIR 2010 Chhattisgarh 80]; wherein, Chhattishgarh High Court has mandated that in the proceedings under section 19 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 clear finding is necessary whether from the estate of the parents, the applicant (daughter-in-law) who is seeking maintenance, can maintain her and under what circumstances she is unable to maintain herself or by her parents. For this purpose, parents of daughter-in-law are required to be heard and therefore, they are necessary party in the litigation. 4. Counsel for the petitioner seeks remand of the case. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents, could not dispute the said position of law and agreed for the same. 6. In view of above, the order dated 29.1.2016 is hereby set aside. The parties are directed to appear before the Court below on 8.9.2016 on which date the respondent would make an appropriate application for impleading her parents (father and mother) as party and notice would be issued to them thereafter. After the service of necessary parties, proceedings shall be undertaken in accordance with law. Needless to say that proceedings would be concluded as expeditiously as possible. With the aforesaid, civil revision stands disposed of. Anand Bhardwaj for petitioner; Mayank Vajpayee for respondents.