SUKHDEV Vs. SATYA DEVI & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs' suit, for, rendition of a decree, for grant of maintenance @ Rs.500/- per mensem against defendant No.1/appellant herein, stood dismissed, by the learned trial Court. In an appeal carried therefrom, before the learned First Appellate Court, by the plaintiff, the latter Court allowed his appeal besides obviously reversed the trial Court's judgment and decree.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs had instituted a suit as indigent person for grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- per month against defendant No.1 with the allegations that the plaintiff is legally wedded wife of defendant No.1, and, a son namely Ram Kishan has been born to the plaintiff out of this wedlock. The plaintiff and defendant No.1 earlier resided at village Dhela and defendant No. got estranged with the plaintiff as he wanted transfer some land in his favour on the part of grand mother of the plaintiff to which she did not agree. Thereafter, the plaintiff started residing with her brother alongwith her son and she spent on the eduction of her son Ram Krishan. Shri Ram Krishan was settled in village Koli Majra. On the intervention of Ram Rakha a close relation of the parties in the year 1988, he constructed a residential house there. Thereafter, the defendants started harassing Shri Ram Krishan on one pretext or the other to compel him to leave his residential house and property which was ancestral. The plaintiff has been visiting the residential house of defendant No.1 and her son off and on and has been requesting defendant No.1 to secure conjugal home to maintain her as his wife. Defendant No.1 has been playing in the hands of defendants No.2 and 3 and is adamant and threatened to kill her. Defendant No.1 willfully neglected and abandoned the plaintiff without reasonable cause and efforts of the plaintiff and her relatives for the last more than 30 years to reconcile the matter have gone futile. The plaintiff has no source of income. Defendant No.1 has sufficient income from the land measuring 14 bighas 14 biswas i.e. (a) land measuring 9 bighas 12 3/5 bighas being 1/5th share of land measuring 48 bighas, 3 biswas, comprised in khewat No.43, Khatauni No. 45, Khasra Nos. 68(12-17) bighas, 89 (12-10) bighas, 69 (0-4) B, 132 (10-14) B, 265/142 (0- 9) B, 268(0-11) B, 270/150(0-10) B, 148 (1-15) B, 149 (1- 8) B, 154 (4-13) B & 153 (2-11) B, (b) land measuring 12 biswas being 1/5 th share of land measuring 3 bighas comprised in Kh/Kh NO. 40/41, bearing Khasra No. 285 (3-0) B and (c) land measuring 4 bighas 9 1/3 biswas being 1/3rd shar eof land measuring 13 bighas 8 biswas comprised in Kh/kh NO.42/43 bearing Khasra Nos. 390/229 (8-1) B & 259 (5-7) B, situate in the area of village Dasomajra, Prgana, Dharampur, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. The plaintiff is entitled to maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- per month. Defendant No.1 was threatening to alienate the suit land.

(3.) Defendant No.1 contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, he averred that Shri Ram Kishan was not the son of defendant No.1. The plaintiff on the first night of marriage did not allow sexual access to him and no sexual relations ever took place inter se the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and the marriage was never consummated. After the marriage, the plaintiff always remained in village Dhela with her parents. Defendant No.1 did not reside with her and he was having land in village Koli Majra and there was o necessity for him to have eyes on the land of the grandmother of the plaintiff. Shri Ram Kishan was never born from the loins of defendant No.1 and it was incumbent on the parents of the plaintiff to give him education. Shri Ram Kishan was not settled in Village Koli Majra and he was working as Clerk in Jogindera Central Co-op Bank Nalagarh and drawing salary of Rs.8000/- per month and his wife was serving in Education Department and she was also drawing Rs.6000/- per month. They are living with the plaintiff. Shri Ram Kishan had also filed suit against defendant No.1 for getting the land on the grounds that the same was ancestral. Shri Ram Kishan and Ram Gopal got instituted the suit from the plaintiff. Defendants No.2 and 3 brothers of defendant No.1 were serving him. The plaintiff is living in village Dhela with her parents for the last 30 years on account of her sweet will. She did not have dispute with defendant No.1 Defendant No.1 was leading life like a bachelor and unmarried man. The price of the land around Baddi Industrial area had shot up and the plaintiff had dragged him to the litigation in order to obtain land from him. The plaintiff was not entitled to any maintenance and the suit of the plaintiff was not maintainable.