Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 250 (RAJ)

Shanker Lal v. Chandani Sharma

2024-02-09

NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

body2024
JUDGMENT : Narendra Singh Dhaddha, J. 1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners-non-applicants (for short 'the non-applicants') against the order dated 21.09.2005 passed by Additional District Judge No. 2, Bharatpur in Civil Misc. Case No. 26/98, whereby the application filed by the respondents-applicants (for short 'the applicants') under Order 32A CPC has been allowed and the non-applicants have been directed to pay Rs.4,000/- per month to the applicant No. 1 and Rs.2,000/- per month to the applicant No. 2 towards maintenance from the date of the application and the arrears whereof shall be paid in 3 quarterly installments. 2. Learned counsel for the non-applicants submits that the order and decree dated 21.09.2005 passed by court below is illegal against the facts and contrary to law. The trial court had not appreciated the evidence led by the parties in right perspective. Learned counsel for the non-applicants also submits that the trial court committed an error in holding that the family of the applicants and non-applicants was joint Hindu family and deceased Shanker Lal was the Karta of the family. Learned counsel for the non-applicants also submits that applicants had not led any evidence that they had no sufficient means to maintain themselves. Learned counsel for the non-applicants also submits that non-applicant No. 1/1-Smt. Ramshree is 75 years of age and widow of Shanker Lal. Non-applicant No. 1/4-Mithlesh, who is the daughter of Shanker Lal had already been left by her husband. Vinod Kumar had liability to maintain them and Vinod Kumar had only income of Rs.20,000/- per annum. So, he cannot pay maintenance of Rs.6,000/- to the applicants as awarded by the trial court. Learned counsel for the non-applicants also submits that the applicant No. 2 has now attained the age of majority. So, she is not entitled to get any maintenance. Learned counsel for the non-applicants also submits that at the time of granting stay, only Rs.1000/- per month directed to be paid. So, applicants are only entitled to get Rs.1000/- per month. So, order of the trial court be set aside. 3. Learned counsel for the RM-applicants has placed reliance upon the following judgments : (1) Khadal Penthi v. Hulash Dei & Anr. in Civil Revision No. 260/1987 decided on 27.02.1989; (2) Smt. Geeta Rani & Ors. v. Kavita Goswami & Anr. in D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 6635/2017 decided on 7.08.2018; (3) Laxmi & Anr. 3. Learned counsel for the RM-applicants has placed reliance upon the following judgments : (1) Khadal Penthi v. Hulash Dei & Anr. in Civil Revision No. 260/1987 decided on 27.02.1989; (2) Smt. Geeta Rani & Ors. v. Kavita Goswami & Anr. in D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 6635/2017 decided on 7.08.2018; (3) Laxmi & Anr. v. Shyam Pratap & Anr. in Mat. App. (F.C.) 217/2019 decided on 28.04.2022; (4) Parwati v. Danpatra Singh & Anr. in First Appeal (Matrimonial) No. 8/2019 decided on 13.07.2020; (5) Kalyan Sah v. Mosmat Rashmi Priya in Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction No. 354/2018 decided on 19.01.2023 and (6) Madhukar v. Shalu reported in 2013 (6) MhLJ 391 4. Learned counsel for the applicants has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the non-applicants and submitted that applicant No. 1 is wife of deceased Hundi Lal and applicant No. 2-Kumari Anju is daughter of deceased Hundi Lai. Shanker Lal was father-in-law and grandfather of applicants respectively and he was karta of the joint Hindu family. Applicants have no means to maintain themselves. So, the trial court rightly ordered to pay the amount of maintenance. So, revision petition be dismissed. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the non-applicants as well as learned counsel for the applicants. 6. Non-applicants had filed reply before the trial court. After that, they remained absent. Therefore, ex-parte proceedings were initiated against them. Shanker Lal was karta of the joint Hindu family and deceased Hundi Lal was his son. Applicants are wife and daughter of the Hundi LaPT' As per the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, Shanker Lal was legally bound to maintain them. Non-applicants are enjoying the fruits of joint Hindu property. So, in my considered opinion, the trial court had not committed any error in granting the amount of maintenance to the applicants. So, revision petition filed by the non-applicants being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. 7. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) dismissed.