This Second Appeal challenging a maintenance decree was dismissed holding that the High Court lacks jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact on evidence and reasonableness of maintenance or marriage expenses.
The appeal was dismissed with costs.
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.
Regular Second Appeal No. 2014 of 2009
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Regular Second Appeal No.2014 of 2009
Date of decision: 07.08.2009
Om Parkash Asija son of Sh. Mukand Lal, retired Lecturer in Physics in M.R. College Fazilka, Tehsil Fazilka, District Ferozepur, now r/o Sidhu Nagri, Street No.4, Abohar, District Ferozepur.
..... Appellant.
Versus
Shafi alias Mandakini daughter of Shri Om Parkash Asija, r/o c/o Manju Rani, (mother), Adarsh Nagar Street No.8, Opp. Ex. M.C. Chhabil Singh, Malout District Muktsar.
..... Respondent.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER
Present:Mr. Rajesh Kumar Girdhar, Advocate for the appellant.
Sham Sunder, J.
This Regular Second Appeal is
directed against the judgment and decree
Regular Second Appeal No. 2014 of 2009
-2-
dated 06.06.2006, rendered by the Court of Civil Judge ( Junior Division ),Abohar, vide which it decreed the suit of the plaintiff for grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs.3500/- per month from the date of suit till the date of retirement of the defendant i.e. 31.03.2002 and @ Rs.1500/-
per month from 01.04.2002 till her marriage, against the defendant and also awarded a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- as marriage expenses, and the judgment and decree dated 13.12.2008, rendered by the Court of Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, vide which it dismissed the appeal and the cross-objections, filed by the defendant (now appellant).
respondent) is the daughter of the defendant (now appellant). She at the time of filing the suit, was minor. It was stated that the parties are governed by the provisions of Hindu Law. It was claimed that the plaintiff was unable to
Regular Second Appeal No. 2014 of 2009
-3-
maintain herself. The defendant (now appellant) was stated to be Lecturer in Government M.R. College, Fazilka and drawing Rs.18000/- per month and also earning Rs.10,000/- per month from tuitions. It was further stated that the defendant (now appellant) had also a bank balance and other moveable and immovable properties. Accordingly, the maintenance to the tune of Rs.4000/- per month was claimed alongwith other expenses. The defendant was many a time asked, to pay the maintenance allowance and refrain from disposing of his property, but to no avail. On his final refusal, left with no alternative, a suit was filed. 3. The defendant, put in appearance, and contested the suit, by way of filing written statement, wherein, it was averred that the plaintiff had no locus standi and cause of action to file the suit; and that the suit was not maintainable. It was stated that the
Regular Second Appeal No. 2014 of 2009
-4-
plaintiff was residing with her mother
and she (mother) was earning Rs. 10,000/-
per month. It was denied by the defendant
that he was earning anything from tuitions. It was further stated that the defendant (now appellant) retired from service on 31.03.2002 and thereafter he was getting Rs.4500/- per month as pension. It was also denied by him that he(defendant) was earning any rental income, from immovable properties. It was admitted that the plaintiff (now respondent) is his minor daughter. The remaining averments contained in the plaint were denied, being wrong.
parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court :-
Regular Second Appeal No. 2014 of 2009
-5-
5- Relief.”
Regular Second Appeal No. 2014 of 2009
-6-
Courts below illegally decreed the suit.
Regular Second Appeal No. 2014 of 2009
-7-
Regular Second Appeal No. 2014 of 2009
-8-
gamble.” It was further held that the jurisdiction of the High Court in interfering with the judgments of the Courts below, is confined only to the hearing of substantial questions of law. The Courts below, on the basis of the evidence of Ram Lubhaya Sharma, Senior Clerk, M.R. Government College, Fazilka, (PW-1), Paramjit Singh, (PW-2), Kamal Kishore, Clerk, (PW-3), Hem Babu Sharma, Manager Gaushalla, Abohar, (PW-4), Gurdip Singh, Assistant, S.B.I., (PW-5), Manju Rani, mother of the plaintiff (now respondent), (PW-6) and the plaintiff, who appeared as her own witness as PW-7, as also the evidence produced by the defendant, came to the conclusion, that maintenance at the rate of Rs.3500/- per month, from the date of suit, till the date of retirement of the defendant i.e. 31.03.2002 and Rs.1500/- per month from 01.04.2002, till the marriage of the plaintiff (now respondent) as also the
Regular Second Appeal No. 2014 of 2009
-9-
marriage expenses to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/-, if granted, would be reasonable. In my opinion, the Courts below did not grant maintenance and marriage expenses, at all, on the higher side. Whether the marriage of the respondent was performed by her mother or whether the father was not invited to the said marriage, was hardly of any consequence. It was the duty of the father to meet the expenses of maintenance as also of the marriage of the plaintiff, his minor daughter. The concurrent findings of fact, recorded by the Courts below, on the aforesaid points, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law on the point, do not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Court. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
Regular Second Appeal No. 2014 of 2009
-10-
with costs.
07.08.2009, dine
( Sham Sunder ) Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the lower courts' findings on the reasonableness of the maintenance grant and marriage expenses in a maintenance suit.
Whether the appellate court has jurisdiction to reconsider the factual findings regarding the first and second appeals on the grounds that they are erroneous.
Whether the appellant failed to invite the respondent to her marriage affects his duty to maintain her and cover marriage expenses.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Madvan Nair Vs. Bhaskar PillaiReferred¶49
Madvan Nair Vs. Bhaskar Pillai (2005) 10, SCC, 533 · Who else cites this
Harjeet Singh Vs. Amrik SinghReferred¶49
Harjeet Singh Vs. Amrik Singh (2005) 12, SCC, 270 · Who else cites this
H.P. Pyarejan Vs. DasappaReferred¶49
H.P. Pyarejan Vs. Dasappa, JT 2006(2), SC, 228 · Who else cites this
Gurdev Kaur and others Vs. Kaki and othersReferred¶49
Gurdev Kaur and others Vs. Kaki and others (JT 2006 (5) SC, 72, · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Om Parkash Asija
Shafi alias Mandakini
SHAM SUNDER
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
