SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Jaipal vs Anju And Anr on 19 March, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO No. 3071 of 2018
Date of Decision: 19.03.2019

JAIPAL ….Appellant
VS.
ANJU AND ANOTHER …Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL
Present: Mr. Manoj Kaushik, Advocate,
for the appellant.

***
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.

This appeal has arisen from the judgement and decree dated

16.01.2018 passed by the District Judge, Family Court-1, Faridabad by which

a suit filed by the respondents for seeking maintenance under Section 19 of

the Hindu Adoptions and SectionMaintenance Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’) against

the appellant/father-in-law was allowed.

In brief, respondent No. 1 is the widow of Narender Son of the

appellant and respondent No. 2 is the granddaughter of the appellant.

Husband of respondent No. 1 had committed suicide. She had filed a suit

against her father-in-law for seeking maintenance in terms of Section 19 of

the Act, alleging therein that he is recorded as owner in possession to the

extent of 1/21 share in the following properties:-

i) Agricultural land bearing Khewat/khata No. 122/133, Rect. No.
64 Killa No. 22/2(0-6), 23/2(1-19), Rect. No. 66, Killa No.
10/2(1-15), 11(0-15), Rect. No. 67, Killa No. 2(8-0), 3/1(2-8),
3/2(4-5), 4(8-0), 5(8-0), 6(8-0), 7(7-17), 8/1(0-18), 12(8-0),
13(8-0), 14/1(1-8), 15(7-12), 16(5-3), 17/1(1-15), 25/2(1-6),
Khewat No. 47/48, Rect/ Mp/ 25, Killa No. 2/10 (0-3), 67//7(7-

1 of 4
28-04-2019 13:46:22 :::
FAO No. 3071 of 2018 Page 2 of 4

17), 67//7/24(0-3) total measuring 103 Kanals 15 Marlas. Out of
the said land, land measuring 01 Kanal 01 marla has been sold.
Defendant is owner in possession of land measuring 102 kanals
8 marlas situated at Village Saran Tehsil and District Faridabad.

ii) Agricultural land bearing khewat No. 968, Khatoni No. 1566,
Rect. No. 24, killa No. 11(8-0), 12(7-13), 13/2(4-0), 19(8-0),
20(7-13) situated at Village Gaunchi, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District
Faridabad.

iii) Out of the sale proceeds of ancestral land of village Saran, the
defendant has purchased the land of village Ladpur bearing
Khewat No. 113/114, Khatoni No. 151, Rect. No. 27, Killa No.
6(7-7), 7(8-0), 8/1(4-0), 8/2(4-0) measuring 23 Kanals 7 Marlas
and Khatoni No. 152, Rect. No. 27, Killa No. 5/2(1-0), 9/1(4-

13), 12/3(4-7), 13(8-0), 14(8-0). 15/1(2-0) measuring 28 kanals
total area measuring 51 kanals.

iv) Out of the sale proceeds of ancestral land of village Saran, the
defendant has purchased the land of Village Chhainsa bearing
Khewat No. 42/43, Khatoni No. 46, Killa No. 17(8-0), 18(1-13),
22/1/2/2(0-15) 23(7-14), 24/1(0-5) measuring 22 Kanals 7
marlas, khewat No. 87/83, Khatoni No. 96, Rect. No. 13/2(1-9),
14/2(0-19), 15/2(6-15) measuring 15 Kanals 3 Marlas, Khewat
No. 118/119, khatoni No. 129, Rect. No. 60, Killa No. 16(8-0),
25(6-8), Rect. No. 10, Killa No. 20(1-9), measuring 17 kanals 17
marlas, Khewat No. 152, Khatoni No. 171, Rect. No. 9, Killa
No. 24/2(2-15) situated within the revenue estate of village
Jafarpur Majra Chhainsa, Tehsil and District Faridabad.

URBAN ANCESTRAL PROPERTIES.

i) One shop in Machhli Market, Sector 22, Housing Board Colony,
Faridabad.

ii) House No. 428, Section 23, Sanjay Colony, Faridabad.

iii) House No. 645, Sector 22, Sanjay Colony, Faridabad.

iv) 8 Shops and six rooms constructed in 200 Sq. yards area in
Gokul Vatika, Faridabad.

2 of 4
28-04-2019 13:46:23 :::
FAO No. 3071 of 2018 Page 3 of 4

v) House constructed on 800 Sq. yards of land situated in Village
Saran, Tehsil and District Faridabad owned and possessed by
Jaipal Singh, Sher Singh, Bhagat Singh and Shiv Singh
Brothers of Jaipal.

She had also alleged that the appellant, being the Karta of the

joint family, is getting `1,50,000/- per month from the ancestral properties. It

was also alleged that the appellant is liable to maintain both the respondents

out of the aforesaid income and an amount of `30,000/- per month was

claimed for respondent No. 1 for house hold expenses and `10,000/- was

claimed for respondent No. 2 for her education etc. The suit was contested by

the appellant alleging that respondent No. 1 was the cause of death of his son

who had committed suicide. He had further alleged that she is well educated

and taking coaching/tuition classes, earning at least `30,000/- per month

which is sufficient for her maintenance. He has further alleged that he is not

the sole owner of the properties mentioned by the respondents and had only a

share in it and denied his earning to the extent of `1,50,000/- per month as

rental income as alleged. On the respective pleadings, as many as four issues

were framed by the learned trial Court. Both the parties lead their oral as well

as documentary evidence.

Learned counsel for the appellant had argued before the learned

trial Court that an FIR was registered against respondent No. 1 as abettor of

the alleged suicide of her husband but she has been acquitted in the said case

vide order dated 01.08.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Faridabad.

3 of 4
28-04-2019 13:46:23 :::
FAO No. 3071 of 2018 Page 4 of 4

Learned trial Court, after taking into consideration various

factors, awarded `3,000/- per month to respondent No. 1 and `2,000/- to

respondent No. 2 against which the present appeal has been filed.

We have learned counsel for the appellant who has although

made earnest efforts to convince this Court to take a different view from the

view taken by the learned trial Court for the purpose of interference in the

impugned order on the ground that respondent No. 2 is not entitled but he

was candid enough to admit that respondent No. 2 in any way would fall

within the definition of the dependent and thus, has rightly been awarded

`2,000/- which is hardly an amount for the purpose of maintenance specially

when the appellant has a share in the huge chunk of land and has got

commercial properties as well.

In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the present

appeal and the same is hereby dismissed, though without any order as to

costs.

[ RAKESH KUMAR JAIN]
JUDGE

March 19, 2019 [HARNARESH SINGH GILL]
Ess Kay JUDGE

Whether speaking / reasoned : Yes / No

Whether Reportable : Yes / No

4 of 4
28-04-2019 13:46:23 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link
MyNation Times Magzine


All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation