KRUSHNA CHANDRA BALUA Vs. DAIMATI KISANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is not pressed but the cross appeal has been argued at length. The facts relevant to the cross appeal are as follows : the appellant Krushna Chandra Balua is admittedly husband of Mst. Daimati Kissani, the respondent. She filed a suit for maintenance which ultimately ended in a compromise on 6-5-1960 in T. S. No. 48 of 1959 in the Court of the Munsif, Sambalpur. Under the compromise the respondent was entitled to a future maintenance of Rs. 30 p. m. , Rs. 20 for herself and Rs. 10 for her minor son if and when the appellant would fail to maintain them. As the appellant failed to maintain the respondent and her minor son, she started execution of the compromise decree. The husband raised an objection under Section 47, C. P. C. that out of the maintenance of Rs. 30 p. m. , Rs. 10 cannot be granted in favour of the son as he was not a party to the compromise decree. The learned executing Court overruled this objection. In appeal however, the learned subordinate Judge accepted it. This cross appeal has been filed against the appellate order.

(2.) THE learned lower appellate Court misconceived the legal position. Under section 23 (2) (b) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, it is laid down that:

(3.) IN the result, the appeal fails without costs and the cross appeal is allowed with costs. Hearing fee of Rs. 50 to the respondent.