RAJESHWARI Vs. BHUNU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This instant appeal is directed against the impugned order dtd. 22/2/2016, whereby the Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg has dismissed the application under Sec. 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1956") filed by the appellant.

(2.) The short background of the facts are that the appellant is the daughter of the respondent No.1. Initially, a writ petition (WPS No.4792 of 2015) was filed by the appellant herein before this Court, wherein a prayer was made that the respondent-Bhanu Ram, who was employed with Bhilai Steel Plant, is going to retire and likely to receive Rs.55.00 Lakh as retiral dues, therefore, appropriate writ be issued directing the respondent-Employer-Bhilai Steel Plant to release a part of retiral dues to the tune of Rs.20.00 Lakh in her favour. The Writ Court, by its order dtd. 7/1/2016 has dismissed the petition as not maintainable, reserving liberty to the petitioner therein to file an application under Sec. 20(3) of the Act of 1956 before the appropriate Civil Court/Family Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that after passing of order dtd. 7/1/2016 by this Court, an application was filed by the appellant herein before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, under Sec. 18 of the Act of 1956, claiming an amount of Rs.25.00 Lakh for the purpose of her marriage. The said application was dismissed in limine. Learned counsel for the appellant, while placing reliance on the decision of High Court of Madras in the case of R. Durairaj vs. Seethalakshmi Ammal and Others, reported in 1991 Law Suit (Mad) 190, would submit that the maintenance amount would include the expenses of marriage, therefore, the Family Court should not have dismissed the application under Sec. 18 of the Act of 1956 at the threshold and the order dtd. 22/2/2016 is liable to be set aside.