HARI LAL Vs. BALVANTIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Facts, in brief, giving rise to this appeal are that plaintiff-respondent No. 1 Balwantiya (hereinafter referred to as plaintiff), filed a suit on 25-11-1980 against Shiv Bachan (now deceased) claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500.00 per month and she also prayed that a charge of the amount of maintenance be created against the property mentioned at the bottom of the plaint. It was further prayed that the defendant husband may be restrained by a permanent injunction from transferring the property. The property shown is agricultural property covering an area of 4.345 hectares, situate in village Sarai Dhani, Pargana and Tahsil Sagdi, district Azamgarh. This suit was filed in forma pauperis and thus initially it was registered as Misc. Case No. 233 of 1980. The application of respondent No. 1 to sue as indigent person was allowed by order dated 2-4-1990. The order was challenged in Civil Revision No. 80 of 1990 which was dismissed on 16-10-1993. Thereafter, the suit was registered as Original Suit No. 288 of 1990. During pendency of the suit, Shiv Bachan died on 10-11-1992. However, he executed three sale deeds on 17-2-1988, 27-2-1988 and 9-3-1989, transferring the entire agricultural property in favour of the defendant-appellant and defendants-respondents Nos. 3 and 4 (hereinafter referred to as the defendants). In respect of other movable and immovable properties, a will was executed in favour of defendant respondent No. 2. Consequently, after death of the sole defendant, the aforesaid transferees were substituted as defendants and the plaint was suitably amended claiming maintenance from the defendants and from the property in their possession.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff was that she is legally wedded wife of Shiv Bachan. The marriage took place during childhood. On attaining majority, second marriage (Gauna) took place and she came to her husband's house and discharged her obligations as wife. Out of this wedlock, she gave birth to one son and two daughters. Her husband, however, later on became addict of intoxicants and also fell in company of bad persons and neglected to maintain the plaintiff and her children. She worked as a labourer and earned livelihood to maintain herself and her children. Other persons feeling pity also helped her. The intention of the defendant husband appeal to be mala fide and he was intending to sell the property in favour of others so that he could be relieved of the responsibilities of maintaining his wife and children. The plaintiff belonged to a well-off family and defendant husband was member of this family and his income was not less than Rs. 1500.00 per month. She is entitled for the amount of maintenance of Rs. 500.00 per month so that she may maintain herself and her children according to the standard of the family.

(3.) After death of the husband, the plaint was amended and para. 10-A was added to the effect that defendants in spite of full knowledge of the fact that the burden of maintenance of the plaintiff and her minor children is on the property in dispute and there is no other property to maintain them, they in collusion have got three sale deeds executed in their favour and have also got their names recorded in revenue papers during the3 pendency of the suit and they are liable to pay the maintenance amount which is a charge against the property. Relief (B) initially claiming decree of a permanent injunction restraining the husband from transferring the property during the lifetime of the plaintiff was deleted and it was substituted by the relief in the present form claiming maintenance from the defendants at the rate of Rs. 500.00 per month and also the entire amount from the date of filing of the suit and she claimed payment of the amount from the property.