Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 881 (MP)

Ram Shankar Vishwakarma v. Rani Vishwakarma

2017-08-02

R.S.JHA

body2017
ORDER 1. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved by order dated 13.1.2017 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No.346-A/2016, whereby the Court below has ordered the applicant to pay interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent No.1 and Rs.2,500/- to the respondent No.2 under sections 19(1), 21 and 22 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “The Act”). 3. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Court below, without adverting to the issues raised by the applicant namely as to whether section 19 of the Act, was applicable to the applicant or whether the respondents had proven and established the conditions mentioned in section 19 of the Act, subject to which liability for maintenance could be imposed upon him, has passed the impugned order by way of an interim measure which is contrary to law. 4. It is submitted that the applicant is the father-inlaw of the respondent No.1 and that he has no coparcenary or ancestral property. It is stated that he is a person of advanced age and is not liable to maintain the respondent, moreso, as the respondent is gainfully employed and has parents to look after her and that she is living in her parents' house, who are taking care of her. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents per contra submits that the respondent is not earning and is hand to mouth and that her father has died and her mother is unable to maintain her. She has also alleged that she has no means of livelihood and the property held by the respondent No.1 is coparcenary property and in such circumstances no fault can be found with the order passed by the Court below. The learned counsel for the respondents has placed before this Court documents to substantiate his submission. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is observed that the documents that have been placed before this Court by the respondents were never filed or placed before the Court below. The learned counsel for the respondents has placed before this Court documents to substantiate his submission. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is observed that the documents that have been placed before this Court by the respondents were never filed or placed before the Court below. It is also observed that the Court below has shifted the entire liability upon the applicant to prove that he is not liable to pay maintenance to the respondent without taking into account the fact that it was the respondent who is required to establish that she was not able to maintain herself and her parents are also unable to maintain her and that she has no other means to maintain herself or her child for the purpose of establishing her claim against the applicant. 7. In the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the Court below has been passed in haste without looking into the provisions of the Act and, therefore, the impugned order dated 13.1.2017 passed by the Family Court, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No.346-A/2016 is set aside and the Court below is directed to redecide the issue and the application filed by the respondent after giving both the parties due opportunities to file their respective documents and establish their claims. It is also observed that the Court below while doing so shall strictly decide the matter in terms of the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. 8. In view of the aforesaid, the civil revision filed by the applicant is allowed and stands disposed of.