MURARILAL Vs. MAMTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Sec. 19 of the Family Court Act is directed against the order of the trial Court dtd. 29/1/2015 rejecting the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Sec. 151 of CPC. The trial Court has earlier passed an ex-parte order on 15/5/2014 granting maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000.00per month to the respondent-daughter-in-law w.e.f. 9/4/2013.

(2.) Facts necessary for disposal of the appeal in nutshell are to the effect that respondent- Mamta had married the son of appellant Pramod in the year 2006. He passed away in 2008. Having not been paid the maintenance, she filed an application under Sec. 19 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. At the given address notice was sent to the appellant initially by ordinary post and thereafter by registered post. As per the endorsement of the postman on the envelope " ysus ls badkj fd;k " the service was presumed to have been effected upon the appellant by the trial Court. Thereafter the trial Court proceeded to decide the application on merits and ordered maintenance as aforesaid.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant tried to persuade this Court that even assuming that the appellant has refused to take notice, the said presumption is rebut table under Sec. 114 of the Evidence Act. Since in his evidence on affidavit sworn during the course of the proceeding he has denied the service of the notice and the endorsement of the postman, the same ought to have been accepted by the trial Court, counsel relies upon two orders in the case of Lalita (Smt.) v. Motilal, 2000 (II) MPWN 30 and Ramesh Chand v. M/s. Bhopal Bottling Co. Govindpura, Bhopal, 1976 MPWN 107 to bolster his submission.