1 fca59.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.59 OF 2016
Ruprao Mahipatrao Wadibhasme,
Aged about 58 years., Occ. Retired,
r/o. C/o. Bhujang Wadke,
Palora, Tq. Parshivani,
District Nagpur. ………. APPELLANT
// VERSUS //
Miss Ankita Ruprao Wadibhasme,
Aged about 21 years, Occ. r/o.
c/o. Roshani Vaidya, Plot No.
34, Mata Nagar, Pimpla Road,
Hudkeshwar, Nagpur. ………. RESPONDENT
Mr.P.S.Kosare, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr.D.A.Sonwane, Advocate for the Respondent.
::: Uploaded on – 17/11/2017 18/11/2017 02:06:54 :::
2 fca59.16.odt
—————————
Date of reserving the Judgment : 10.11.2017.
Date of pronouncement of the Judgment : 17.11.2017.
—————————
CORAM : R.K.DESHPANDE
AND
M.G.GIRATKAR, JJ.
JUDGMENT (Per M.G.Giratkar, J) :
1. By the present appeal, the appellant has challenged the
Judgment of Family Court, Nagpur in Petition No.C-97 of 2013,
dt.23.6.2016, by which the appellant is directed to pay maintenance
of Rs.8,000/- p.m. to the respondent (daughter).
2. The case of the appellant, in short, is as under :
That the respondent herein is daughter of the appellant.
His first wife died in the year 2013. He has three daughters and one
son from his first wife. On 9.6.2013, appellant performed second
marriage. It is the case of appellant that since then his
daughter/respondent was not behaving properly. She lodged false
report and has filed false case against him. It is the case of the
::: Uploaded on – 17/11/2017 18/11/2017 02:06:55 :::
3 fca59.16.odt
appellant that the Family Court has not considered evidence properly
and has wrongly passed the impugned order.
3. It is submitted that the appellant is a retired Government
employee. His home take salary is very meagre i.e. Rs.10,320/- p.m.
He cannot pay the amount of Rs.8,000/- p.m. to the respondent.
Learned Family Court has not considered the same and wrongly
directed him to pay maintenance of Rs.8,000/- p.m. Being aggrieved
by the Judgment, dated 23rd June, 2016 of the Family Court, the
appellant has filed the present appeal.
4. Heard Ms P.S.Kosare, learned Counsel for the appellant.
She has submitted that respondent is intentionally not residing with
her father/respondent. She has filed false report against her father.
Appellant is a retired Police Constable and he is getting only
Rs.10,320/- p.m. towards pension. He has to maintain his second
wife and son. His second wife is suffering from heart ailment and
therefore, he is not in a position to pay amount of maintenance.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that, in
the report itself, respondent has stated that she was doing some job.
::: Uploaded on – 17/11/2017 18/11/2017 02:06:55 :::
4 fca59.16.odt
Now she is major, aged about 23 years and she can maintain herself.
At last, it is prayed to allow the appeal and quash and set aside the
impugned Judgment.
6. Heard Mr.D.A.Sonwane, learned Counsel for the
respondent. He has pointed out report lodged by the respondent. He
has submitted that the appellant, after his second marriage, has
changed his behaviour. He was behaving arrogantly and in an
obscene manner with his own daughter/respondent. He tried to
outrage her modesty. Therefore, there was no any option but to
lodge report. Learned Counsel has submitted that the appellant was
in jail. Therefore, he entered into compromise and agreed to pay
Rs.6,000/- p.m. to the respondent. But, thereafter, he did not pay a
single pie till filing of the petition before the Family Court. Learned
Counsel has pointed out his admission in the cross-examination.
7. Learned Counsel Mr.D.A.Sonwane has submitted that the
respondent is studying in G.S. Commerce College. She has to pay
college fee etc. She has no other income. Therefore, amount of
maintenance @ Rs.8,000/- p.m. is not exorbitant. At last, it is prayed
to dismiss the appeal.
::: Uploaded on – 17/11/2017 18/11/2017 02:06:55 :::
5 fca59.16.odt
8. Perused the evidence on record. There is no dispute that
appellant was in service in Military. After his retirement, he joined
the Police department. In the year 2013, his first wife died. He has
three daughters and one son. Two daughters are married and are
residing with their husbands.
9. Respondent Ankita and her brother were only residing
with the appellant. It is not disputed that the respondent lodged
report against the appellant stating that he directed her to serve meal
to his friends, who were under the influence of liquor. When she
refused, he abused her in obscene words. He beat her. Therefore,
report was lodged. Offences punishable under Sections 294, 323,
354, 506, 509 of the Indian Penal Code were registered against the
appellant. He was in jail. On 8.10.2013, appellant agreed to pay
Rs.6,000/- p.m. to his daughter/respondent and on the very day, he
paid Rs.6,000/-. Thereafter, appellant came to be acquitted by the
Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kamptee.
10. The appellant has admitted in his cross-examination
before the Family Court that he did not pay a single pie after
payment on 8.10.2013. This itself shows that appellant is
::: Uploaded on – 17/11/2017 18/11/2017 02:06:55 :::
6 fca59.16.odt
intentionally neglected his own daughter. It is expected from the
parents to develop their children; especially in the case of daughter,
it is duty of father to maintain her in a good condition, provide her
education etc. and perform her marriage. Instead of that, appellant
is neglecting his own daughter. Not only that, appellant beat her
and scolded her in obscene words and therefore, she had to take
shelter of her sister. There is no dispute that the respondent is
residing separately since the incident of beating and abusing her.
11. There is no doubt that the brother of respondent is
residing with the appellant. Therefore, he supported his father to
some extent. But, in his cross-examination, he has admitted that his
father used to drink liquor sometime. Respondent and himself had
lodged report against the appellant in Police Station, Kamptee. He
has further admitted that after the report his father was in jail for
about one month. When his father was in jail, he and his sister
Ankita were residing in the house of his father. He has further
admitted that, after lodging report, he and his sister were out of
house for few days. This itself shows that after the second marriage
of appellant, his behaviour is changed towards his own children.
::: Uploaded on – 17/11/2017 18/11/2017 02:06:55 :::
7 fca59.16.odt
Therefore, it is clear that the appellant has refused and neglected to
maintain his own daughter/respondent.
12. The petition was filed before the Family Court u/s.20 of
the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. Section 20 reads as
under :
20. Maintenance of children and aged parents.–
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section a Hindu is
bound, during his or her lifetime, to maintain his or her
legitimate or illegitimate children and his or her aged or
infirm parents.
(2) A legitimate or illegitimate child may claim
maintenance from his or her father or mother so long as
the child is a minor.
(3) The obligation of a person to maintain his or her aged
or infirm parent or a daughter who is unmarried extends
in so far as the parent or the unmarried daughter, as the
case may be, is unable to maintain himself or herself out
of his or her own earnings or other property. Explanation.
–In this section “parent” includes a childless step-
mother.
::: Uploaded on – 17/11/2017 18/11/2017 02:06:55 :::
8 fca59.16.odt
13. Evidence on record shows that, being father, the
appellant has not taken care of his daughter/respondent. There is no
dispute that respondent has no any permanent source of income. No
evidence is brought on record to show that she is doing service and
earning some salary. There is no evidence to show that she is doing
part-time job. On the other hand, it is brought on record by the
respondent that she is residing separately. She is studying in G.S.
Commerce college. Her tuition fees was outstanding and notice was
issued by College. Looking to the expenditure and age of
respondent, Rs.8,000/- p.m. towards amount of maintenance
granted by Family Court is not exorbitant.
14. In respect of pay capacity of the appellant, it is clear that
appellant is getting pension of the post of Police Constable. He was
also in the Military. Therefore, it is obvious that he is getting pension
from the Central Government also. He is having agricultural land
about 1 H. 0.1 R. It is the moral as well as legal duty of the appellant
to maintain his unmarried daughter. There is no dispute that the
respondent is unmarried and taking education. She is unable to
maintain herself. She has no any source of income and therefore, the
order passed by the learned Family Court granting maintenance of
::: Uploaded on – 17/11/2017 18/11/2017 02:06:55 :::
9 fca59.16.odt
Rs.8,000/- p.m. to the respondent is perfectly legal and correct.
There is no merit in the appeal. Hence, we pass the following order.
// ORDER //
The appeal is dismissed.
The record and proceedings be sent back to the
trial Court.
JUDGE JUDGE
[jaiswal]
::: Uploaded on – 17/11/2017 18/11/2017 02:06:55 :::
10 fca59.16.odt
::: Uploaded on – 17/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on – 18/11/2017 02:06:55 :::