RAM SARAN DASS Vs. JATIN KUMAR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ms. Nisha wife of late Shri Sudhir Kumar along with master Jatin Kumar son of late Sudhir Kumar filed a petition under Sections 19 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the present petitioner Ram Saran Dass in the court of learned Senior Sub Judge, Chandigarh. Along with the petition, an application was filed for interim maintenance allowance by the applicants. The learned trial court vide its order dated 31.3.1998 allowed the said application and directed the present petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 1000.00 per month as maintenance allowance to both the plaintiffs. Aggrieved from the said order, the petitioners field the present revision petition.

(2.) While impugning the said order, the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two fold contentions for consideration of this court i.e.

(3.) In order to appreciate the above contentions, reference to some basic facts would be necessary. Sudhir Kumar was married to Ms. Nisha on 25.4.1993 at Chandigarh. From the wedlock of the parties Master Jatin Kumar was born on 9.3.1994 at Chandigarh. Unfortunately, on 8.3.1994 Sudhir Kumar died. It is averred that Sudhir Kumar was carrying on the business of cloth merchant under the name and style of Attul Cloth House, Railway Road, Kalka and was having income from Rs. 30,000/ - to Rs. 40,000/ - per month and he owned immovable property, agricultural land and share in the Karyana shop belonging to the family. He also had a share in the residential house. In other words, Sudhir Kumar was stated to be a person of great means and on these facts, the maintenance of Rs. 10,000.00 per month was prayed for and also interim order in that regard was prayed, for. The suit and the application were contested by the father-in-law, who stated that he is 68 years old and is dependent on his other son. Some allegations with regard to Sudhir Kumar's estates were not denied but it was stated that father-in-law was sleeping partner in M/s Gaisi Ram Sham Sunder. It was further averred that the plaintiff had sufficient income, as she had got Rs. 1 lac from the Life Insurance Corporation of India upon the death of her husband. It was denied that the defendant had taken any benefit of the business of Sudhir Kumar upon his death. Amicable settlement between the parties failed and the learned trial court on merits prima facie found as under :