SANGEETA SINGH Vs. BINDHYACHAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the above stated miscellaneous appeals have been preferred against the common order dated 22.6.2015 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, East Champaran at Motihari in Maintenance Case No. 84 of 2009 as well as Maintenance Case No. 227/2012 by which learned Principal Judge, Family Court, East Champaran at Motihari dismissed both the above stated maintenance cases filed on behalf of the appellant.

(2.) Appellant Sangeeta Singh filed Maintenance Case No. 84 of 2009 for her maintenance as well as for maintenance of her minor daughters and son against sole respondent under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, claiming permanent alimony of Rs. 12,000/- per month and also interim maintenance of Rs. 6000/- per month from respondent till disposal of the above stated case. The appellant Sangeeta Singh claimed in her petition that she is widowed daughter-in-law of respondent and her husband, namely, Sanjay Singh, died on 6.11.2005 due to his ailments. She, further, claimed that her marriage with above stated Sanjay Singh had taken place on 24.5.1995 and she was blessed with three daughters and one son out of the above stated wedlock. She, further, claimed that after death of her husband, she was neglected by respondent and respondent forcibly took away one of her daughters, namely, Kumari Arpana and son Shivam Kumar Singh and kept them with him. She, further, claimed that share of her husband in her ancestral property was also not given to her and her ornaments and other belongings were also snatched by respondent. She, further, claimed that she approached to District Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari for redressal of her grievances and, thereafter, District Magistrate, East Champaran, referred the matter to the court of Sri S.C.Lal, the then Executive Magistrate, Motihari, who, subsequently, settled the matter by partitioning the ancestral property but the respondent did not follow the direction of the then Executive Magistrate, Motihari, and got filed collusive Partition Suit No. 48 of 2006 in the court of Subordinate Judge, Motihari through her daughters with an object to grab the property of deceased husband of appellant. She, further, pleaded in her petition that the respondent got an ex parte collusive decree and, furthermore, the respondent also filed Guardianship Case No. 6 of 2006 against the appellant with false and concocted allegation. She, further, claimed that the respondent failed to discharge his legal duty to maintain his widowed daughter-in-law. She, further, pleaded that the respondent is a retired teacher and he gets Rs. Eight thousand approximately per month as pension and has 20 Bighas agricultural land from which he earns Rs. Ten lac per annum. She, further, claimed that she does not have any earning to maintain herself and her minor children.

(3.) Respondent appeared before learned Principal Judge, Family Court and contested the claim of appellant by filing objection in which respondent, specifically, pleaded that the appellant after death of her husband solemnised her second marriage with one Saurabh Singh, son of Vijay Singh, in the month of May, 2008 and she has been living with her second husband, namely, Saurabh Singh. He, further, pleaded that he has three daughters, who filed partition suit bearing Partition Suit No. 48 of 2006 against the respondent and others and in the aforesaid partition suit, the appellant as well as her children were party. The respondent, further, pleaded that the aforesaid suit was decreed on 29.11.2008 and, accordingly, the ancestral property of husband of the appellant as well as respondent was partitioned and the due share was allotted to appellant, who is, exclusively, in possession of share of her husband. Respondent, further, pleaded that the appellant appeared in above stated Partition Suit No. 48/2006 but she did not file any written statement. Respondent, further, pleaded that the second husband of appellant has inimical and litigating term with the respondent and as a matter of fact, the second husband of appellant set up the appellant and got filed above stated Maintenance Case No. 84/2009.