Chattisgarh High Court
Banshilal Nirmalkar vs Ku. Vidya Nirmalkar on 1 May, 2025
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1
Digitally
signed 2025:CGHC:19785-DB
by AMIT
PATEL NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
FA(MAT) No. 146 of 2025
Banshilal Nirmalkar, S/o Bholaram Nirmalkar, Aged About 44 Years, Resident of
Harimkasa (Gandai), Police Station- Sahaspur-Lohara, District- Kabirdham (C.G.)
... Appellant
versus
Ku. Vidya Nirmalkar So-Called D/o Banshilal Nirmalkar, Aged About 20 Years,
Resident of Panch Rast, Subhash Chowk, Supela, Bhilai, Tahsil And District- Durg
(C.G.)
... Respondent
(Cause title taken from CIS System)
For Appellant : Mr. Gaurav Singhal, Advocate.
Hon'ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey J.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput J.
Judgment on Board
Per, Rajani Dubey, Judge
01.05.2025
1. Heard on admission.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed an application
under Section 20 (3) of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956
before the learned Family Court along with an application for grant of
interim maintenance, stating that the mother of respondent namely
Smt. Paru is the legally wedded wife of the appellant and their marriage
was solemnized on 18.04.1999 and out of their wedlock, the
respondent was born on 16.11.2002. After three years of marriage, the
appellant ousted the mother of respondent, therefore, she is living in
her parental house and she has no source of income so that she can
look after her daughter and the respondent is pursuing B. Com course
and she is unable to acquire proper food, cloths, study fees, stationary
etc. and the mother of respondent is not able to bear the those
expenses, therefore, she filed interim maintenance application before
the Family Court.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order
dated 22.02.2025 (Annexure A/1) passed by learned Family Court is
perverse, illegal, erroneous and contrary to the facts and
circumstances of the case, therefore, it is liable to be quashed.
Learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that though the marriage
was solemnized between the appellant and mother of the respondent
on 18.04.1999, but the respondent was not born from their wedlock. He
further contends that Smt. Paru was having illicit relationship with one
Dinesh Meshram, thus the appellant is not the biological father of
respondent, as such the appellant raised this objection before the
learned Family Court, but the learned Family Court did not appreciate
this fact and thereby wrongly allowed the interim maintenance
application of the respondent and directed the appellant to pay interim
maintenance amount Rs. 2,000/- per month. He further contends that
the learned Family Court did not consider objection of the appellant,
however, it is evident that the respondent has filed an application for
grant of maintenance amount after 22 years, therefore, she is not
entitled to get any maintenance or interim maintenance, thus the
impugned order is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel prays that
notice be issued to the respondent, till then, effect and operation of the
impugned order dated 22.02.2025 may be stayed.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the
material available on record.
5. It is evident from the impugned order dated 22.02.2025 (Annexure A/1)
that respondent filed an application against the appellant for
maintenance under Section 20 (3) of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance
Act, 1956 and in this application, the respondent has also filed an
application for interim maintenance and afterwards the appellant filed
reply and objected the same that he is not the biological father of the
respondent as the mother of the respondent had illicit relationship with
another person, thus, liability of giving maintenance amount to the
respondent does not fall upon him as he is not her biological father.
6. Learned Family Court after appreciating the oral and documentary
evidence and hearing both the parties allowed the application for
interim maintenance of the respondent and directed the appellant to
pay Rs. 2,000 per month as interim maintenance till the final disposal
of the case. The learned Family Court observed in the impugned order
that marriage of the appellant was solemnized with the respondent's
mother on 18.04.1999 and mother of the respondent left the house of
the appellant on 22.03.2002 and the respondent was born on
16.11.2002. Thus, the respondent was born within 09 months i.e.,
22.03.2002, when well within the departure of the respondent's mother
from the company of the appellant. Whether the respondent is the
biological daughter of the appellant or not is subject to the adjudication
and thereby allowed the interim maintenance application of the
respondent by directing the appellant that he shall pay Rs. 2,000/- per
month as an interim maintenance to the respondent. The order passed
by learned Family Court is based on documents filed by both the
parties.
7. Before passing the interim maintenance, a Court has to see prima facie
relationship between the parties and earning capacity of both the
parties, thus the learned Family Court rightly allowed the application for
interim maintenance as filed by the respondent, based on the facts
available on record, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with this
impugned order.
8. In consequence, this appeal is dismissed at motion stage itself without
issuing notice to the other party, however it is directed that the learned
Family Court shall decide the suit within '06 months' from the date of
this order and if the case will not be decided within the aforesaid
stipulated period and also if the appellant is not found responsible for
delay so caused, then the learned Family Court shall reconsider the
interim maintenance application of the respondent.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey) (Sachin Singh Rajput)
Judge Judge
AMIT PATEL
