RAMRATAN PANDURANG SUNWANI Vs. MAYA RAMRATAN SUNWANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application, revision applicant questioned legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned judgment and order in Petition No. E-405 of 1996 and Petition No. E-2511/1996 delivered by learned Judge, Family Court, Nagpur on 1.10.2005 whereby present petitioner was made liable to pay maintenance @ Rs. 700/- per month to respondent no. 2 Ku Payal through respondent no.1 Smt Maya.

(2.) It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that he is not liable to pay maintenance to Ku Payal whose paternity was denied by him on the ground that he had no access to her mother at the relevant period as she was living at her parents' house. Revision applicant, therefore, prayed for setting aside order of maintenance granted for girl Ku Payal, his alleged daughter. It is submitted on behalf of the revision applicant that he had married with Maya d/o Bhaiyyalal Borkar on 19.4.1980, but Maya used to reside at her father's house at Nagpur and claimed separate maintenance for herself and daughter Minal by filing Misc. Cri. Application No. 37 of 1981. Prayer for grant of maintenance by respondent Maya was rejected. However, it was allowed in respect of daughter Minal and according to applicant, he is still paying maintenance allowance to daughter Minal. Respondent Maya then filed Petition No. E-2511 of 1996 before the Family Court claiming maintenance for herself and Petition No. E-405 of 1996 claiming maintenance for daughter Payal. The Family Court has directed present applicant to pay maintenance @ Rs. 700/- per month to petitioner Ku Payal and Rs. 1000/- per month to respondent Maya.

(3.) According to learned counsel for revision-applicant, in Second Appeal No. 280 of 1994, decided by this Court on 4.5.2010, marriage between revision applicant respondent no.1 Maya came to be dissolved by a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Thus, respondent maya is no more the wife of applicant with effect from 4.5.2010. At the same time, learned counsel for the applicant does not dispute that till her re-marriage, divorced wife Maya would be entitled to claim maintenance, but according to learned counsel, respondent no.2 Payal, alleged daughter of applicant is not entitled to claim maintenance.