Bachau Singh vs Savita Devi And 2 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 22058 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 3
 

 
Case :- FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 367 of 2022
 

 
Appellant :- Bachau Singh
 
Respondent :- Savita Devi And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Kuldeep Singh,Vipin Vinod
 

 
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.

Hon'ble Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi,J.

Heard learned counsel for the defendant-appellant.

This appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act has been filed praying to set aside the judgment dated 26.09.2022 in O.S. No.275 of 2016 (Savita Devi and 2 others vs. Bachau Singh) under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.

Briefly stated facts of the present case are that undisputedly the plaintiff-respondent No.1 is the wife of late Manish who died on 30.10.2011. The plaintiff-respondent No.1 is the daughter-in-law and the plaintiff-respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the grand-sons of the defendant-appellant. On death of his son, the defendant-appellant lodged FIR being Case Crime No.240 of 2011 under Section 302 I.P.C., P.S. Karma on 26.11.2011, in which he named the parents and brothers of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 as well as the plaintiff-respondent No.1. The aforesaid case crime is now registered as Session Trial No.38 of 2014 (State vs. Shiv Shankar Singh), which is pending. According to the plaintiff-respondent No.1 and other accuseds, the aforesaid Manish died due to consumption of liquor. From the wedlock of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 and the deceased Manish, two sons namely Samir and Vaibhav were born. Since the plaintiff-respondents have no means of livelihood, therefore, they filed the aforesaid Original Suit No.275 of 2016 under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, which has been partly decreed by the impugned judgment dated 26.09.2022 directing the defendant-appellant to pay Rs.2500/- per month to the plaintiff-respondents towards maintenance. Aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment, the defendant-appellant/ father-in-law of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 and grandfather of the plaintiff-respondent Nos.2 and 3, has filed the present appeal. From the impugned judgment, it appears that the defendant-appellant is an agriculturist. The plaintiff-respondent No.1 is his real daughter-in-law and the plaintiff-respondent Nos.2 and 3 are his grand-sons who have no means of livelihood. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed in the impugned judgment, we find that a sum of Rs.2500/- directed by the Family Court to be paid by the defendant-appellant to the plaintiff-respondents, is not excessive. There is no merit in this appeal. The appeal is frivolous and therefore deserves to be dismissed at the admission stage.

For the reasons aforestated, the appeal is dismissed.

Order Date :- 20.12.2022

NLY