BHANWAR SINGH Vs. SMT. KUSUM KANWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this appeal filed under section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 the defendant/appellant has assailed the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2003 passed by the Judge, Family Court No. 1, Jaipur in Case No. 104/2000, whereby the learned Family Court partly allowed the petition filed by the plaintiff/respondent under Sec. 18 & 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 and granted Rs. 2,000.00 per month from the date of institution of the petition towards the maintenance of the plaintiff herself and two daughters namely Om Kanwar and Teena Kanwar.

(2.) Material facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the plaintiff/respondent (hereinafter referred as "the plaintiff") filed a petition under Sec. 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred as "the Act") against the defendant/appellant (hereinafter referred as "the defendant") for granting Rs. 6,000.00 per month as maintenance to her and four children namely daughter Om Kanwar, son Laxveer Singh, daughter Teena Kanwar and son Chandrapal Singh and also for right of residence in house situated in Chittorgarh. It is stated by the plaintiff that in the year 1985, the defendant turned them out from the house. Thereafter the plaintiff alongwith the children came to Jaipur and took shelter at her uncle Shri Laxman Singh. It is also stated that in the year 1990, after death of her mother, the plaintiff went to the defendant at Chittorgarh to live there. Then the defendant assured her that he will get himself transferred to Jaipur to live with them and told the plaintiff to shift there. Thus, the plaintiff alongwith the children came back to Jaipur but neither the defendant came there nor he sent money for maintenance. In such compelling circumstances, the plaintiff filed a similar suit in the Family Court, Jaipur in the year 1992, which came to be disposed of by compromise. Thereafter the plaintiff went to Chittorgarh. It is further stated that after some time the defendant again started saying the plaintiff to shift at Jaipur and assured her to send the maintenance expenses and to get himself transferred there. The defendant has been sending maintenance upto the year 1998 and stopped the same thereafter. It is also stated that in the end of 1998, the defendant came to the plaintiff at Jaipur and stole the title deeds of her plot. Thereafter on 09.04.1999, the plaintiff went to Chittorgarh with her daughter and found there another women Lal Kanwar, who claimed to be wife of Bhanwar Singh. She misbehaved with the plaintiff and her daughter and did not allow them in the house. It is further stated that the defendant is permanent employee in Rajasthan State Electricity Board and getting Rs. 10,000.00 per month as salary with other facilities. In addition to this, the defendant is getting Rs. 3,000.00 per month as income from rent and Rs. 5,000.00 per month as income from agriculture and other sources.

(3.) The defendant filed written statement admitting the fact of marriage with the plaintiff in the year 1971 and the fact of having four children out of the wedlock, as mentioned in para 2 of the petition and denied all other averments of the petition. The defendant has stated that all the four children are adult and are in job thus they are capable to maintain themselves. It is also stated that out of her own will, the plaintiff alongwith the children left the house of the defendant in the year 1984, went with Kem Khan and solemnized marriage with him and since then she is living an adulterous life with Kem Khan in Jaipur. It is also stated that Kem Khan used to visit her frequently in absence of the defendant. It is further stated that on 10.06.1984, the plaintiff gave in writing to the defendant that she will not file any suit in the Court for maintenance of her and the children. It is also stated that it is wrong to say that the plaintiff ever stayed with her uncle Laxman Singh. The defendant further stated that he never maltreated her and the children, rather they left the house of the defendant out of their own will. The defendant admitted to be an employee of Rajasthan State Electricity Board (RSEB) and denied the fact that he is getting Rs. 10,000.00 per month as salary. He also denied the income of Rs. 3,000.00 per month from rent, and Rs. 5,000.00 per month from agriculture and other sources as stated by the plaintiff. The defendant also stated that the plaintiff instituted a criminal case against him and thereafter, RSEB suspended him. Therefore, after usual deductions he is getting Rs. 2,492/- per month only. It is also stated that the plaintiff is earning Rs. 1,500.00 per month by selling milk and all the children are in job. It is also stated that the plaintiff has wrongly shown Lal Kanwar to be wife of the defendant and prayed to dismiss the petition filed by the plaintiff.