WALI RAM WARYAM SINGH Vs. MUKHTIAR KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant's appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the district Judge, Sangrur, on the 24th of June, 1967, whereby he reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent Mukhtiar Kaur for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 20/- per mensem against her father Wali Ram defendant-appellant.

(2.) THE plaintiff filed a suit in forma pauperis claiming maintenance at the rate of rs. 60/- per mensem from her father Wali Ram defendant on the ground that she was an unmarried girl studying in first year class in a college at Sangrur with no income of her own and that even her mother was not helping her. It may be mentioned that the defendant appellant had re-married during the life time of Mst. Kartar Kaur, mother of the plaintiff and it is alleged that he has strained relations with both the mother and the daughter. They had filed an application for maintenance under Section 488 of Criminal Procedure Code earlier as well which was allowed but as the plaintiff had grown major, she could not get benefit of the order of the Criminal Court. It has been pleaded by her that her father is a big landlord owning 300 Bighas of land in village Harchandpura. 60 Bighas of land in village Batuha, District Sangrur, and could easily pay Rs. 50/- per mensem as maintenance allowance to the plaintiff. The claim of the plaintiff was resisted by the defendant who pleaded that the plaintiff has passed her matriculation examination and was in a position to earn a living for herself. It was further pleaded that Mst. Kartar Kaur. Mother of the plaintiff. Owned 60/65 Bighas of land and she could also help in maintaining the plaintiff. The defendant also claimed that there were 11 members of his family whom he had to support and his income was not enough. On the pleadings of the parties, the following two issues were framed:-1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any maintenance; if so, what should be the quantum of maintenance? 2. Relief.

(3.) THE trial Court on an appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence produced before it, has come to the conclusion that the mother of the conclusion that the mother of the plaintiff owns about 80 Bighas of land and is in a position to support the plaintiff who also is a grown-up girl above 20 years of age. The defendant, according to the trial Court, has to maintain his other children who are not getting any education and also to pay maintenance in a sum of Rs. 25/- per mensem to Mst. Kartar kaur under the orders of the Criminal Court. In these circumstances the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. She preferred an appeal and the district Judge has held that Section 20 (3) of the Hindu Adoptions and maintenance Act (Act 78 of 1`956), hereinafter called the Act, casts an obligation on a Hindu to maintain his unmarried daughter so long as she remains unmarried and is unable to maintain herself out of her own income or other property. An application was made by the defendant during the pendency of the appeal before the District Judge by way of an additional evidence to show that the respondent was employed in a school getting some salary but these allegations were controverted by the plaintiff and held not to be proved. It was, of course, found that there was no dispute regarding the properties held respectively by the defendant and Mst. Kartar Kaur, the mother of the land out of which 516 bighas of land was under mortgage and the rest in her possession. This land was given to her by her father when she was deserted by the defendant and she had to maintain her son, from the loins of the previous husband Narain Singh who was the brother of the defendant, out of this very property. The District Judge granted a decree for maintenance of Rs. 20/- per mensem from the date of the suit till her marriage against Wali Ram defendant-appellant with costs of both the courts and further observed that actually the plaintiff would require Rs. 40/- per mensem towards her maintenance but Mst. Kartar Kaur, mother of the plaintiff should also be sharing the liability to the extent of one half. Wali Ram defendant has now come up in second appeal.