RADHIKA NARANG Vs. KARUN RAJ NARANG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit for maintenance and separate residence under Section 9 of the CPC read with Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. This suit has been filed by the wife against her husband and her father- in-law. Husband has been arrayed as defendant No.1 whereas father-in-law has been shown as defendant No.2. Defendant No.2 made an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit against him was barred as it did not disclose cause of action against him at all. Instead of dealing with this application, this Court passed an order dated 10th December,2003 framing the following issue: ""Whether plaint does not disclose a cause of action against defendant No.2 and whether defendant No.2 is liable to be struck off from the array of parties?OPD"

(2.) Since parties did not wish to lead any evidence on this issue, it being a legal issue, therefore, this Court proceeded to hear arguments on this issue.

(3.) I have looked into the plaint carefully and written statement as also the replication. The father-in- law of the petitioner has been joined as defendant No.2 primarily on the ground that he is the Karta and the head of the joint family and is liable to maintain and provide for the maintenance of the plaintiffs out of the joint family income and assets which he is controlling jointly with defendant No.1. It is the case of the plaintiff that all the assets owned by the defendants are the joint property of the joint family and all the companies are family companies but are styled as private limited or limited companies. It is further stated in the plaint that grand-father of the defendant No 2 owned sugar mills which had been the source of funds for the joint family for three generations. There is denial of such averments in the corresponding para of the written statement i.e. para 8. Defendant No.1 specifically denied about the existence of joint family and defendant No.2 being Karta of the family. It was stated in the written statement that property so mentioned in the plaint was neither ancestral nor belongs to defendant No.2. Similarly defendant No.2 denied such facts.