Rajasthan High Court
Shanker Lal vs Smt Chandani Sharma on 9 February, 2024
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
[2024:RJ-JP:6717]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 14/2006
Shanker Lal S/o Shri Ninnu Mal, since deceased through his legal
representatives:-
1/1. Smt. Ramshree widow of Shanker Lal
½. Vinod Kumar S/o Shanker Lal
1/3. Smt. Kanti D/o Shanker Lal
1/4. Smt. Mithlesh D/o Shanker Lal
1/5. Kamlesh D/o Shanker Lal
All residents of Behind Shiv Nagar, Police Station Toondala,
District Firojabad (U.P.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Smt Chandani Sharma D/o Jagdish Prasad wife of Hundi Lal
2. Kumari Anju D/o Late Shri Hundi Lal aged 10 years minor
through her natural guardian mother chandani Sharma, resident
of Nadiya Mohalla, near Pathbadi, Bharatpur.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J. P. Goyal, Senior Counsel with
Ms. Deeksha Mittal, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. K. Gupta, Senior Counsel with
Ms. Surabhi Agarwal, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Judgment
DATE OF JUDGMENT 09/02/2024
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners-non-
applicants (for short 'the non-applicants') against the order dated
21.09.2005 passed by Additional District Judge No.2, Bharatpur in
Civil Misc. Case No.26/98, whereby the application filed by the
respondents-applicants (for short 'the applicants') under Order
32A CPC has been allowed and the non-applicants have been
directed to pay Rs.4,000/- per month to the applicant No.1 and
[2024:RJ-JP:6717] (2 of 4) [CR-14/2006]
Rs.2,000/- per month to the applicant No.2 towards maintenance
from the date of the application and the arrears whereof shall be
paid in 3 quarterly installments.
Learned counsel for the non-applicants submits that the
order and decree dated 21.09.2005 passed by court below is
illegal against the facts and contrary to law. The trial court had
not appreciated the evidence led by the parties in right
perspective. Learned counsel for the non-applicants also submits
that the trial court committed an error in holding that the family of
the applicants and non-applicants was joint Hindu family and
deceased Shanker Lal was the Karta of the family. Learned counsel
for the non-applicants also submits that applicants had not led any
evidence that they had no sufficient means to maintain
themselves. Learned counsel for the non-applicants also submits
that non-applicant No.1/1-Smt. Ramshree is 75 years of age and
widow of Shanker Lal. Non-applicant No.1/4-Mithlesh, who is the
daughter of Shanker Lal had already been left by her husband.
Vinod Kumar had liability to maintain them and Vinod Kumar had
only income of Rs.20,000/- per annum. So, he cannot pay
maintenance of Rs.6,000/- to the applicants as awarded by the
trial court. Learned counsel for the non-applicants also submits
that the applicant No.2 has now attained the age of majority. So,
she is not entitled to get any maintenance. Learned counsel for
the non-applicants also submits that at the time of granting stay,
only Rs.1000/- per month directed to be paid. So, applicants are
only entitled to get Rs.1000/- per month. So, order of the trial
court be set aside.
[2024:RJ-JP:6717] (3 of 4) [CR-14/2006]
Learned counsel for the non-applicants has placed reliance
upon the following judgments : (1) Khadal Penthi Vs. Hulash
Dei & Anr. in Civil Revision No.260/1987 decided on
27.02.1989; (2) Smt. Geeta Rani & Ors. Vs. Kavita Goswami
& Anr. in D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.6635/2017
decided on 7.08.2018; (3) Laxmi & Anr. Vs. Shyam Pratap &
Anr. in Mat. App. (F.C.) 217/2019 decided on 28.04.2022;
(4) Parwati Vs. Danpatra Singh & Anr. in First Appeal
(Matrimonial) No.8/2019 decided on 13.07.2020; (5)
Kalyan Sah Vs. Mosmat Rashmi Priya in Civil Miscellaneous
Jurisdiction No.354/2018 decided on 19.01.2023 and (6)
Madhukar Vs. Shalu reported in 2013 (6) Mh. L.J.
Learned counsel for the applicants has opposed the
arguments advanced by learned counsel for the non-applicants
and submitted that applicant No.1 is wife of deceased Hundi Lal
and applicant No.2-Kumari Anju is daughter of deceased Hundi
Lal. Shanker Lal was father-in-law and grandfather of applicants
respectively and he was karta of the joint Hindu family. Applicants
have no means to maintain themselves. So, the trial court rightly
ordered to pay the amount of maintenance. So, revision petition
be dismissed.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the non-applicants as well as learned counsel for the
applicants.
Non-applicants had filed reply before the trial court. After
that, they remained absent. Therefore, ex-parte proceedings were
initiated against them. Shanker Lal was karta of the joint Hindu
family and deceased Hundi Lal was his son. Applicants are wife
[2024:RJ-JP:6717] (4 of 4) [CR-14/2006]
and daughter of the Hundi Lal. As per the Hindu Adoptions and
Maintenance Act, 1956, Shanker Lal was legally bound to maintain
them. Non-applicants are enjoying the fruits of joint Hindu
property. So, in my considered opinion, the trial court had not
committed any error in granting the amount of maintenance to the
applicants. So, revision petition filed by the non-applicants being
devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed
accordingly.
Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) dismissed.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Jatin /2
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
