Regular second appeal filed by widow and children of deceased against judgments awarding maintenance to the widow. This court held no substantial question of law arose and dismissed the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
RSA No. : 435/2010 Decided on:6.12.2010
Smt. Bhuvneshwari and others. …Appellants.
Versus
Smt. Khampi Devi and another. … Respondents. __________________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes
For the appellants : Mr. Haresh Sood, Advocate.
For the Respondents :Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj, Advocate.
Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge.
This Regular Second Appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.6.2010 passed by the learned District Judge, Kullu in Civil Appeal No.64 of 2009.
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2
contained in the plaint, one Thakru was owner in possession of the land, detailed in para 2 of the plaint. He died in the year 1988 and after his death the land devolved upon his sons, namely, Sher Singh defendant-respondent (hereinafter referred to as ‘defendant’ for convenience sake) and Ali Ram, now deceased, as per will. Plaintiff is the widow of Thakru. Plaintiff was kept nicely by the defendant, however, she was turned out after the death of Thakru in March, 2004. Plaintiff had no source of income and could not maintain herself. Appellantsdefendants are the widow and children of Ali Ram, i.e. plaintiff’s daughter-in-law and grand-daughter, respectively. They have inherited the estate of Ali Ram. Defendants are allegedly earning Rs. 10,000/- per month from the property. According to the plaintiff, the defendants are duty bound and there is willful refusal and neglect in the discharge of their duty, without reasonable cause and they be directed to provide maintenance allowance @ Rs. 2,000/- per month and the suit property be put under charge towards maintenance amount.
3
daughters filed joint written statement and contested the suit. According to Bhunveshwari, she inherited a small chunk of land from Ali Ram, husband. It was difficult to maintain her and her minor children, namely, Puja and Sunita. She left the matrimonial house and settled at quite far off place. The replication was filed by the plaintiffs.
4
5
not interested in seeking maintenance from Bhuvneshwari. Plaintiff was 60 years old at the time when her statement was recorded on 20.9.2007. She is a rustic lady. In her plaint, she has specifically asked for the maintenance from all the defendants, including Bhuvneshwari. Case of the plaintiff, in a nutshell, was that since the defendants have inherited the property of her husband, they were duty bound to maintain her. Rather, in the written statement filed by Bhuvneshwari, she has offered to maintain the plaintiff in case she resides with her.
6
the Regular Second Appeal and the same is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
(Rajiv Sharma), J.
6.10.2010.
awasthi
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Bhuvneshwari and others
Smt. Khampi Devi and another
Rajiv Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
