Om Parkash vs Smt. Raj Bala and Others

Jasbir Singh, J.—This appeal has been filed against an order dated 3.9.2009, decreeing a suit, filed by the Respondents against the Appellant under Sections 19, 21 and 22 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, granting maintenance to the Respondents @ Rs. 2400/-per month i.e. Rs. 1000/-for Respondent No. 1 and Rs. 700/-each for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, till such time Respondent No. 1 re-marries and Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 attain age of majority or till share of their deceased father is transferred in their name.

Marriage of Respondent No. 1 was solemnized with Harkesh Gaur son of the Appellant. Out of the wedlock, two children were born. Harkesh Gaur died on 9.8.2002. Respondents were not maintained by the Appellant. They had to live separate from him. It is case of the Appellant that a house measuring 54 square yards has been given to the Respondents in a compromise and on account of that, they are not entitled to get any maintenance whatsoever from him.

Trial Court, on pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:

Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to claim maintenance allowance from the Defendant on the ground mentioned in the plaint? OPP.

If issue No. 1 is proved to what amount of maintenance allowance they are entitled to? OPP

Whether the Plaintiffs had no locus-standi or cause of action to file the present suit? OPD

Relief.

The parties were given ample opportunity to lead evidence. Thereafter, it was found, as a matter of fact, that the Appellant was duty bound to maintain the Respondents. He has failed to do so. It was also noted that the Appellant is in possession of joint hindu family property, in which, the deceased Harkesh Gaur had a share. It has also come on record that the Respondents are entitled to inherit the share of Harkesh Gaur.

By taking note of above facts and also earning of the Appellant, a very meager amount as maintenance was granted. When the order under challenge was passed, the Appellant was drawing an amount of Rs. 17,600/-per month as salary and he was also having rental income to the tune of Rs. 3400/-. Taking note of the income of the Appellant, we feel that the amount granted towards maintenance is very less. However, at this stage, we are not interfering in the same because no appeal has been filed by the Respondents. No case is made out for interference on merits. Otherwise also, the appeal is time barred and explanation given to condone the delay is not justifiable.

Dismissed.