SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Kuldeep Singh vs Shakuntla & Anr on 7 March, 2019

CR No. 8633 of 2015 (OM) -1-

222
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

CR No. 8633 of 2015 (OM)
Date of Decision: 07.03.2019

Kuldeep Singh
-Petitioner
Vs
Smt. Shakuntla and another
-Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH

Present: Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate,
for the petitioner.

Mr. Jitendra Sharma, Advocate,
for the respondents.
****

RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J.

This revision petition has been preferred by the

petitioner against the order dated 18.11.2015 passed by District

Judge, Family Court, Hisar vide which application filed by

respondent No.1 under Section 24/26 of Hindu Marriage Act

was partly allowed and the petitioner was directed to pay a sum

of Rs.10,000/- per month to respondent No.1, Rs.2000/- each

per month to both the children and Rs.8000/- per month to

college going daughter apart from litigation expenses.

At the time of issuance of notice of motion on

27.01.2016, following order was passed:-

“Learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that vide order dated 18.11.2015

1 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 17-03-2019 01:54:57 :::
CR No. 8633 of 2015 (OM) -2-

learned District Judge, Family Court, Hisar

ordered the petitioner to make payment of a

sum of Rs.22,000/- (Rs.10,000/- for wife,

Rs.2,000/- each for two male children and

Rs.8,000/- for daughter). Apart from that,

litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.3,300/- has

also been ordered.

The main contention of learned counsel for

petitioner is that Pooja (daughter) is a college

going girl and her date of birth is January, 1995.

Ashish, one of the son’s, is also major as his

date of birth is 07.01.1998. As per the

provisions of Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage

Act, 1955 they are not entitled for maintenance

allowance, being not minor children. However,

learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted

that petitioner is ready to make the payment of

maintenance allowance awarded to the wife and

one minor child, namely, Lavish, from the date

of application.

Notice of motion for 11.04.2016.

Meanwhile, the petitioner shall make

payment of maintenance allowance to the wife

and one minor child, namely, Lavish from the

2 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 17-03-2019 01:54:58 :::
CR No. 8633 of 2015 (OM) -3-

date of application and payment of maintenance

allowance awarded to Pooja and Ashish (major

daughter and son) shall remain stayed.”

In due course, the case came up for consideration

before this Court on 10.09.2018 and learned counsel for the

petitioner sought time to address arguments on merits to show

that provisions in terms of Section 24 and 26 of Hindu Marriage

Act can be considered in isolation with other provisions

contained in Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, Hindu

Succession Act, 1956 and Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act,

1956.

Today, learned counsel for both the parties have

relied upon Padmja Sharma vs Ratan Lal Sharma, 2000(2)

RCR (Civil) 590.

In addition to the aforesaid judgment, learned

counsel for the petitioner also relied upon Smt. Alka Bhaskar

Bakre vs Bhaskar Satchidanand Bakre, 1990(2) HLR 561 and

contended that maintenance in favour of minor child under

Hindu Marriage Act can only be passed during minority of the

child. On attaining majority, provisions of Section 26 would

cease to apply.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the

respondents refers to para no.10 of Padmja Sharma’s case

(supra) and submitted that it is the duty of the petitioner to

3 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 17-03-2019 01:54:58 :::
CR No. 8633 of 2015 (OM) -4-

maintain his children. Provisions in terms of Hindu Marriage Act,

1955, Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, Hindu

Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 and Hindu Succession

Act, 1956 are to be read in conjunction with one another.

Maintenance includes provisions for food, clothing, education

and medical attendance and treatment. In case of unmarried

daughter, reasonable expenses and incident to her marriage

can be granted.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner

on the basis of same paragraph relies upon the explanation

attached to Section 20 of Adoption and Maintenance Act and

submits that minor child can claim compensation as long as

he/she is minor. In order to apply the aforesaid law, factual

matrix of the case has to be appreciated.

Petitioner filed reply to the application under Section

24 and 26 of Hindu Marriage Act. In reply to para no.7 of the

application, following reply was given by the petitioner:-

“That the contents of para no.7 of the

application are wrong, incorrect and hence

denied. It is denied that respondent/wife is a

household lady and she has no source of

income except salary of petitioner/husband.

Complete reply has already been given above

which may also be read as part and parcel of

4 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 17-03-2019 01:54:58 :::
CR No. 8633 of 2015 (OM) -5-

the present para as well.”

Apparently, the petitioner has not taken this ground

on the basis of which legal arguments are being made before

this Court. Even during course of arguments before the District

Judge, Family Court, Hisar, no such argument was made in

respect of majority of one of the daughter thereby dis-entitling

her from claiming maintenance from the father. Even in the

grounds of revision filed before this Court, no such averments in

respect of one of the unmarried daughter having attained

majority has been pleaded. The foundation on the basis of

which legal arguments are sought to be made, is missing

altogether in the present case.

During course of arguments, it has been revealed

that the petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act filed by

the petitioner has been dismissed.

In view of aforesaid position, I do not see any

justification to interfere in this revision petition. This revision

petition is accordingly, dismissed. However, petitioner would be

at liberty to avail his remedies in accordance with law.

07.03.2019 (RAJ MOHAN SINGH)
Jyoti Yadav
JUDGE

1. Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
2. Whether reportable : Yes/No

5 of 5
17-03-2019 01:54:58 :::

Leave a Reply

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

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