Dismissed

Ganga Devi v. Meena Kumari and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Dec 2022CR/7238/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged the dismissal of a petitioner's application to reject her own maintenance petition at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. The Court held that no ground was made out to interfere, noting the petitioner may also maintain a claim against the mother-in-law.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petition is dismissed. The impugned order is left unaltered.

Ganga Devi Vs Meena Kumari and Anr. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2022)

¶1

119

¶2

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh

¶3

Civil Revision No. 7238 of 2019

¶4

Date of Decision: 21.12.2022

Ganga Devi

... Petitioner(s)

Versus

Meena Kumari and Another

¶9

... Respondent(s)

¶10

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal.

¶11

Present: Mr. Charanpreet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

¶12

Anil Kshetarpal, J.

¶13

The petition filed by the widowed daughter-in-law and grandchild of the petitioner under Section 19, 21, 22 and 23 of the Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1956 Act”) is pending before the trial Court. The application under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) filed by the petitioner for rejecting the petition at the threshold has been dismissed. The correctness of the aforesaid order has been challenged in this revision petition.

¶14

The learned counsel representing the petitioner contends that a petition under Section 19 of the 1956 Act can only be maintained against the father-in-law and not against the mother-in-law.

¶15

This Court has considered the submissions. The petitioner prays for rejection of the petition without permitting the parties to contest the case DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ and lead evidence. Such drastic power should only be exercised if the Court 2023.01.04 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

Civil Revision No. 7238 of 2019 2

¶17

is of the considered view that the petitioner has fulfilled the parameters laid down in Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint. Even otherwise, under common law, if the grant mother has the wherewithal, she has the moral responsibility to maintain her widowed daughter-in-law and grandchild.

¶18

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order, at this stage. Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed.

¶19

(Anil Kshetarpal) Judge

¶20

December 21, 2022 “DK”

¶21

Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶22

DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2023.01.04 12:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Ganga Devi v. Meena Kumari and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganga Devi v. Meena Kumari and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India Vs Hardwari Singh and Ors.

Hari Ram and Another Vs State of Haryana and Others

Rohtash Vs State of Haryana and Others

State of Haryana Vs Dhara Singh

M/S Magic Eye Developers Pvt.Ltd Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Ram Prasad and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.