The High Court of Jharkand dismissed a C.M.P. filed to quash an order awarding Rs. 1,000/month as litigation cost. The court found no reason to interfere as the original maintenance case was pending and permanent maintenance claims remained unadjudicated.
Prayer for quashing the order dated 29.11.2019 was dismissed.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 246 of 2020
Versus
Girija Devi … … Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
For the Petitioners : Mr. Prabhash Chandra Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent : -----
Order No. 03 Dated: 05.02.2021
The present C.M.P. is taken up today through Video conferencing.
The instant C.M.P. has been filed for quashing the order dated 29.11.2019 (Annexure-2 to the present petition) passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Giridih in Original Maintenance Case No. 63/2019, whereby the petition filed by the plaintiff/respondent for grant of interim maintenance has been allowed and the defendants/petitioners have been directed to pay Rs. 1,000/- per month to the plaintiff/respondent towards litigation cost.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the content of the C.M.P. including the impugned order dated 29.11.2019.
3. The plaintiff (the respondent herein) of Original Maintenance Case No. 63/2019 filed an application on 21.02.2019 before the learned court below seeking permanent as well as interim maintenance from the defendants/petitioners. It is contended by the petitioners that the respondent is not legally wedded wife of their deceased father namely, Budhan Sao and she has also been getting Rs. 10,000/- per month as family pension. Moreover, the petitioners are not own sons of the respondent and hence, they are not liable to maintain her. Hence, the impugned order dated 29.11.2019 is fit to be set aside.
4. On perusal of the impugned order dated 29.11.2019, it
2
appears that the learned court below after considering the aforesaid contentions of the petitioners though did not allow any interim maintenance to the respondent/plaintiff, however, an amount of Rs. 1,000/- per month was awarded to be paid by them to the respondent as litigation cost. The Original Maintenance Case No. 63/2019 is still pending for consideration and the claim of the respondent for permanent maintenance to be paid by the petitioners/defendants is yet to be adjudicated by the learned court below.
5. Hence, I see no reason to entertain the present C.M.P. The same is accordingly dismissed.
Manish
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the present C.M.P. prayer for quashing the interim maintenance and litigation cost order is maintainable.
Whether the respondent is legally wedded to the father of the petitioners and liable to provide maintenance.
Whether the learned court below's award of litigation cost can be quashed.
Basudeo Sao
Raju Prasad Sao
Manoj Kumar Sao
Girija Devi
Rajesh Shankar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court