ANTU RAM Vs. USHA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition seeks to challenge the order dated 10.10.1998 passed by the Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Kurukshetra granting interim maintenance to the respondent on an application under Section 19(1) and 21(4) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act.

(2.) The application for maintenance had been filed by respondents Usha Rani and her minor children asserting that she was married to Jarnail Singh son of Anant Ram, petitioner. After the death of Jarnail Singh, the petitioner had been maltreating them and had turned them out of the house. Whereafter, the respondent had taken up residence with the parents of Usha Rani. Since Usha Rani and minor children do not have any independent source of income and the father-in-law owns 18 acres of agricultural land in village Kaliana, Tehsil Thanesar and is earning Rs. three lakhs per annum and is also having tractor, Cows and Buffalows, therefore, he was obliged to maintain the respondents who do not have any income for sustaining themselves. In these circumstances they had asked for the maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- p.m. The application was contested on the ground that the respondents have constructed a house after spending rupees one lakhs and another amount of Rs. 12,000/- was already deposited in the account of Usha Rani. It was also submitted that no share of the deceased husband was left in the hands of the petitioner and as the plaintiff wife had remarried, she does not deserve any maintenance. As objection had also been taken to the effect that the suit had not been valued properly for the purposes of Court fee. The Civil Judge had after considering all aspects awarded as interim maintenance a sum of Rs. 750/- p.m. in favour of the daughter in law and Rs. 250/- for each of the minor children. Aggrieved by this order, Anant Ram has come up in revision.

(3.) The impugned order is being assailed on two grounds namely the right of a widow on remarriage to maintain the application for maintenance and the power of the Court to grant interim maintenance. Regarding the first ground, the Court below was rightly of the view that the question was to whether Usha Rani had remarried will have to be decided by the Court on the basis of material brought on the record in respect thereto during the trial at the time of final disposal of the application. In support of the second argument, reliance has been placed upon the observations made in Ramchandra Behera and Ors. v. Smt. Snehalata Dei, A.I.R. 1977 Orissa 96; Sodgar Singh v. Harbhajan Kaur and Ors., (1977)79 P.L.R. 506 and Makhan Singh v. Jagdish Kaur and Ors., (1991-2)99 P.L.R. 324.