Allahabad High Court
Shambhu Nath Patel vs Smt. Chandrawati Devi And 2 Others on 9 July, 2019
Bench: Sudhir Agarwal, Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 34
Case :- FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 137 of 2019
Appellant :- Shambhu Nath Patel
Respondent :- Smt. Chandrawati Devi And 2 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Pranab Kumar Ganguli
Counsel for Respondent :- R.C. Maurya
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing appeal.
2. Sri R.C. Maurya, learned counsel appearing for respondents, states that he does not propose to file any written objection and Court may look into the question as to whether delay has been explained satisfactorily or not after hearing learned counsel for appellant and may pass appropriate order.
3. After hearing learned counsel for appellant and going through the affidavit filed in support of this application, we are of the view that delay in filing appeal has been explained satisfactorily.
4. Condoned.
5. This application, accordingly, stands allowed.
6. Let appeal be registered with regular number and old number shall also continue to be shown in bracket for finding out details of case, whenever required by parties with reference to either of the two number.
Order Date :- 9.7.2019
Siddhant Sahu
(D.Cond.Appl.No.1 of 2019)
Case :- FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 137 of 2019
Appellant :- Shambhu Nath Patel
Respondent :- Smt. Chandrawati Devi And 2 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Pranab Kumar Ganguli
Counsel for Respondent :- R.C. Maurya
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Sri Pranab Kumar Ganguli, learned counsel for appellant and Sri R.C. Maurya, learned counsel for respondents.
2. This appeal under Section 19 of Family Court Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1984") has arisen from judgment dated 24.12.2019 and decree dated 14.01.2019 passed by Km. Rinku, Principal Judge, Family Court, Varanasi in Case No. 1017 of 2010 (Kumari Kusum Patel and others Vs. Shambhu Nath Patel) allowing respondents' application under Section 18/20 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, awarding maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month to respondent-1 and 3 each.
3. Learned counsel for appellant contended that appellant is a retired Class-IV employee from U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad and is not drawning any pension but to substantiate further facts, nothing has been placed on record either before Court below or this Court that no retiral benefits i.e. provident fund, gratuity, leave encashment were paid and details thereof have also not been given.
4. He further contended that appellant's family has agricultural land, area 3 bigha, but the land which comes in the share of appellant is in possession of respondent-1 and her son is cultivating the same, therefore, aforesaid awarded amount is not justified but we find that on this ground, Court below has declined the claim of maintenance to the son i.e. respondent-3, Rajesh Kumar and if that be so, for the purpose of maintenance to respondents- 1 and 3, aforesaid aspect becomes irrelevant.
5. So far as quantum of maintenance is concerned, we find that the same is not excessive or arbitrary or otherwise illegal, therefore, no interference is called for.
6. Appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 9.7.2019
Siddhant Sahu
