JAI SINGH Vs. SUMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 07.05.2014 vide which the petition filed under Sections 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (in short 'the Act') was partly allowed and he was directed to pay maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.2 - Tinu @ Sonia.

(2.) The facts pleaded by the respondents in the petition filed before the Family Court, Sonipat are that marriage of respondent No.1 -Suman was solemnised with Dharamvir (since deceased) son of the appellant on 28.06.2002 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. Out of the said wedlock, one daughter i.e. respondent No.2 Tinu @ Sonia was born on 21.07.2004. After the death of the husband of respondent No.1, she was turned out of her matrimonial home along with her minor daughter i.e. respondent No.2 and since then she had been compelled to reside at her parental home in village Dikadla. It was further pleaded that as there was no moveable or immoveable property in their name, hence, it was difficult for the respondents to maintain themselves. It was also submitted that the late husband of respondent No.1 and the father of respondent No.2 was a member of Joint Hindu Family and co-owner in land measuring 4 acres situated in District Sonipat, which was recorded in the name of appellant herein and thus, both the respondents i.e. mother and daughter had a right in the same, being coparceners. It was further submitted that the respondents, herein, were liable to be, thus, maintained out of the income of the said land. It was also alleged that the widow pension by the Government of Haryana, which was disbursed in her favour, was never given by the appellant to her and was illegally withheld by him.

(3.) The appellant refuted the averments made in the aforementioned petition by way of his written statement and denied the same. He, in fact, pleaded that the ancestral property, which was stated to be in his hands, was partitioned way back in the year 2000 and at that time, his deceased son Dharamvir, husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondent No.2 respectively had taken cash amounting to Rs.15 lakhs in lieu of his share in the ancestral property from him and his other two sons. It was submitted that cash amount so received had then been invested by him for purchasing a private bus, which his deceased son Dharamvir would ply. It was also pleaded that the deceased Dharamvir being HIV positive was got treated by him and his other two sons by spending a huge amount of money on his treatment. Further, on the death of his son Dharamvir, the appellant repaid a debt of Rs.22 lakhs along with interest to the creditors, which was standing against the name of Dharamvir. The appellant also submitted that besides all this, he incurred expenditure on the education of respondent No.1.