BALWINDER SINGH Vs. SINDERPAL KAUR.AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Family Court, Barnala dated 2.3.2017 by which suit filed by both the respondents under Order 33 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short 'the CPC'] in forma pauperis for recovery of maintenance under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 [for short 'the Act'], by creating a charge over the property of the appellant and for permanent injunction restraining the appellant from alienating the suit property owned by him in any manner was decreed only qua respondent No.2/plantiff No.2 in the suit as plaintiff No.1/respondent No.1 had withdrawn the suit and the Family Court, Barnala had directed the recovery of maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.5000/- per month from the defendant/appellant by plaintiff No.2 by creating a charge over the suit property and also restraining him from alienating the suit property in any manner.

(2.) In brief, respondent No.1 & 2/plaintiff No.1 & 2 filed a suit in forma pauperis under Order 33 Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC for recovery of maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- per month for plaintiff No.1/respondent No.1 and Rs.5000/- per month for plaintiff No.2/respondent No.2 by creating charge over the suit property and also for permanent injunction against the defendant/appellant from alienating the suit property.

(3.) Plaintiff No.1 was married to Iqbal Singh (son of the appellant) on 16.12.2004 as per Sikh rites at Barnala. They were blessed with a female child (plaintiff No.2), born on 29.1.2007. Unfortunately Iqbal Singh died in an accident on 15.6.2010. Plaintiff No.1 was allowed to live with plaintiff No.2 in her matrimonial home by the defendant till 23.3.2011 and thereafter the defendant sent plaintiff No.1 along with plaintiff No.2 to her parental home. The defendant did not pay maintenance thereafter w.e.f. 23.3.2011 to the plaintiffs whereas, the defendant is allegedly the owner in possession of the suit property and has been earning Rs.4 lakh per annum out of which he could have easily paid maintenance @ Rs.15,000/- per month as claimed by the plaintiffs. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant was asked to maintain them and not to dispossess them from the suit property but he finally refused on 8.7.2011 forcing the plaintiffs to file the present suit before the Family Court, Barnala. Plaintiff No.1 withdrew her suit filed as forma pauperis on 1.4.2013 but plaintiff No.2 sued the defendant in her capacity as an indigent person after permission was granted by the Family Court on 13.7.2016. The defendant filed written statement on 29.8.2016 in which he averred that plaintiff No.1 had solemnized the marriage with Sukhchain Singh on 9.3.2012 but started litigating with her second husband and had moved an applications under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2008 [for short 'the Act of 2008'] and also under Section 498-A/406 of the IPC besides filing a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [for short 'the 1955 Act'] which was later on converted into a petition under Section 13B of the 1955 Act. It is further averred that plaintiff No.1/respondent No.1 had recorded her statement on 27.7.2015 about the receipt of entire dowry articles including gold ornaments and cash amount of Rs.5 lakh of her future maintenance from Sukhchain Singh and as such marriage of plaintiff No.1/respondent No.1 with her second husband Sukhchain Singh was dissolved on a petition filed under Section 13B of the 1955 Act and the plaintiff No.1/respondent No.1 had withdrawn all the applications filed against Sukhchain Singh and defendant has already filed an application under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 for seeking the custody of plaintiff No.2. It is further averred in the reply that after the marriage of plaintiff No.1 with Sukhchain Singh, plaintiff No.2 became the step daughter of Sukhchain Singh and has no right in the property of the defendant. On the aforesaid pleadings as many as four issues were framed by the trial Court.