RAUNAKI Vs. MAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Section 115 CPC prays for quashing order dated 11.10.2002 passed by the Civil Judge, Panchkula for granting maintenance to the respondents under Section 19, 21, 22 and 23 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. Plaintiff -respondent No. 1. Smt. Maya, is widow of Gurdial Singh son of petitioner No. 1 Chaudhary Raunaki and Sister -in -law of Krishan. Plaintiff -respondents No. 2 to 4 are the children of respondent No. 1 Smt. Maya and deceased Gurdial. The Civil Judge has granted Rs. 500/ - to each of the plaintiff -respondents as maintenance by holding as under: -

(2.) MR . Vikas Suri, learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the trial court has taken into consideration all irrelevant documents as is evident from the perusal of these documents, which are annexed as Annexures P -1, P -3, P -4 and P -5. According to the learned counsel, these documents have no connection with the petitioners or the deceased Gurdial Singh. Therefore, no reliance could have been placed on those documents. Learned counsel has, however, accepted that there is 1/14th share of the petitioner in the Coparcenary property sold vide sale deed Annexure P -2 in 1999 and a sum of Rs. 32,000/ - has fallen to their share. It is also not disputed that petitioner No. 2 Krishan son of Chaudhary Raunaki is employed as a Peon in General Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh. According to the learned counsel, petitioner No. 1 is an old man of 70 years and petitioner No. 2 has his own family and children to look after. Therefore, the award of maintenance to the tune of Rs. 500/ - per son would amount to Rs. 2,000/ - per month, which would be a huge burden on the petitioners.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the order, I am of the considered view that this petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. An amount of Rs. 2,000/ - for four persons is not excessive or unreasonable especially when it has been shown that vide Annexure P -2, the husband of respondent No. 1 has a coparcenary share in the property. It is well settled that a widow is entitled to claim maintenance if her deceased husband at the time of his death was a shareholder in the coparcenary property. In this regard reliance could be placed on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Jai Kaur v. Pala Singh and Jit Singh's case (supra).