SIRI RAM Vs. SUMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 11.01.2012 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Ambala whereby petition under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (in short the Act, 1956) filed by respondent herein has been accepted and against the judgment and decree dated 24.12.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ambala whereby appeal preferred by the appellant has been dismissed. For convenience sake, reference to parties is being made as per their status in the petition.

(2.) THE detailed facts are already recapitulated in the judgments of the courts below and are not required to be reproduced. However, the brief facts are to the effect that the petitioner filed petition seeking maintenance from the respondent under the Act, 1956. It was pleaded that the petitioner got married to Naresh Kumar Thukral son of Siri Ram Thukral (respondent) about five years ago in accordance with the Hindu rites and rituals. A female child namely Muskan was born from the said wedlock. She is living with the petitioner. The husband of the petitioner died on 15.08.2005 in a motor vehicle accident. He was doing the business of electrical articles in a rented shop No. 50, M.C. Market, Jagadhari Gate, Ambala City and was earning Rs. 30,000/ - to 35,000/ - per month. The respondent had purchased house No. 147, Ram Nagar, Ambala City with the financial help of said Naresh Kumar (since deceased). After the death of said Naresh Kumar, the respondent started to interfere in the shop of her husband and refused to maintain the petitioner and her minor daughter. The petitioner has not solemnized second marriage till date. The petitioner has no source of income to maintain herself as well as her minor daughter. Though, the petitioner along with her daughter has inherited the shop and business of her husband, but the respondent is pocketing the entire income from the shop. The respondent has good source of income and has coparcenary movable and immovable property.

(3.) REPLICATION was filed controverting the pleas raised in written statement and reiterating the pleas taken in the plaint. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the Court of first instance framed following issues: