OM PARKASH CHITRA Vs. SMT SARBATI AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's second appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court whereby suit of the plaintiffrespondents for declaration has been decreed and they have been awarded maintenance of Rs. 600/- per month each from the appellant from the date of institution of the suit.

(2.) Brief facts of this case as emerged from the plaint are that respondent No. 1 was married with Leela Krishan son of the appellant. Respondent No. 2 was born out of the said wedlock. About 1 1/2 years earlier from the filing of the suit, Leela Krishan, husband of respondent No. 1 and father of respondent No. 2 died and thereafter, they were turned out of their residential home by the appellant. The Istridhan of respondent No. 1 was also not returned by the appellant. The respondents had no source of income. It was further pleaded that the appellant, who had retired from FCI Department, had received the retiral benefits of Rs. 25,00,000/- and was drawing the pension of Rs. 8,000/- per month and was having additional monthly income of Rs. 50,000/-. The respondents, who were unable to maintain themselves, were entitled to the maintenance of Rs. 6000/- per month each from the appellant. Hence, the suit.

(3.) Upon notice, the appellant appeared and contested the suit raising various legal objections in the written statement. It was alleged that the appellant had no coparcenary property in his possession and he was drawing pension of Rs. 3760/- per month since July, 2007. It was further submitted that the aforesaid pension was insufficient even for his own livelihood. The relationship of respondents No. 1 and 2 was admitted. It was denied that the respondents were turned out of the residential house by the appellant and it was alleged that respondent No. 1 had gone to the house of her parents along with respondent No. 2 at her own accord. It was denied that respondent No. 1 was having no source of income and it was further alleged that she was doing the labour work and was earning of Rs. 5,000/- per month approximately. Remaining facts of the plaint were denied and dismissal of the suit was prayed for.