KAMLA BAI Vs. RAJKUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant preferred this appeal under Sec. 19 (1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 1/2/2020 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, C.G. in Civil Suit No.508-A/2018, whereby the application filed by the appellant seeking maintenance under Sec. 22 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act, 1956) was dismissed.

(2.) Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that appellant married Kedarnath Suryavanshi (hereinafter called as 'deceased'), who was working as Line Attendant Grade-III in the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board and died on 16/1/1999. According to the appellant, after her death of first wife- Smt. Kirtan Bai, her husband-deceased performed marriage with her (appellant herein) and out of their wedlock, one child was born. During their married life, her husband-deceased again performed marriage with respondent No.1 Rajkumari by way of 'Chudi' custom and respondent No.2- Ram Gopal was born from their wedlock. It is averred by the appellant that after the death of deceased, appellant herein and respondent No.1 settled their disputes amicably with regard to the claim of property including post-death dues and executed a mutual agreement. As per their settlement, appellant was entitled for ' share of the entire property of deceased. It is further averred by her that on the basis of mutual agreement, she did not raise any objection for obtaining succession certificate, but the respondents gave only Rs.30,000.00 to her and grabbed the remaining property of deceased. It was also pleaded that respondents have given Rs.1,500.00 per month as maintenance allowance for a limited period to her, but after few months, they refused to pay the amount, therefore, she filed a civil suit, but in absence of any original mutual agreement or any written documents filed before the Court below, the suit filed by her was dismissed. It is also pleaded by her that the entire property of deceased both movable and immovable were grabbed by the respondents and she has not been given any title or right over the property held by the deceased whereas respondents are enjoying the entire property owned by the deceased, over which the appellant's right also accrues. It is also pleaded by her that being widow of deceased, she has also right over the property, income and pensionary benefits of deceased. Therefore, she has prayed for a direction to be issued to the respondents to give monthly maintenance allowance of Rs.25,000.00 to her.

(3.) In reply, respondents have denied the fact that the appellant is the wife of the deceased and AW-2 Lalita Bai was not born from their relationship. They have stated that appellant has forcefully recovered an amount of Rs.50,000.00 from them. It is further submitted that nowhere the name of appellant is mentioned in succession certificate and the appellant had filed the suit which has already been dismissed. It is also submitted that respondent No.1 is receiving the pension from the said department after the death of deceased and also having one acre land, which is not sufficient for her livelihood and there is no other source of income, therefore, the application filed by the appellant seeking maintenance is liable to be rejected.