Skip to content


Twincle @ Babi Vs. Purshottam - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtRajasthan Jodhpur High Court
Decided On
AppellantTwincle @ Babi
RespondentPurshottam
Excerpt:
.....to the appellant or her husband and was not an earning member. upon taking up of the matter, the learned counsel for the parties submitted that the matter had been discussed in the mediation center too but as the parties could not finally arrive at a mutually acceptable figure of the amount of maintenance, the proposition for settlement did not materialize. after having examined the record and looking to the overall circumstances of the case, when we expressed our prima facie view that some provision for maintenance of the appellant, who happens to be the wife of the deceased son of the respondent, deserves to be made, the learned counsel for the appellant, in the firs.place, dbcma no.1524/2012 2 submitted that reducing her claim, the appellant would be willing to receive an amount of.....
Judgment:

DBCMA No.1524/2012 1 6 D.B.Civil Misc.

Appeal No.1524/2012 Twincle @ Babi versus Purshottam Date of Order :: 14th November 2013 HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI Mr.US Gehlot, for the appellant.

Mr.A.K.Acharaya, for the respondent.

<><><> This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 06.06.2012, as passed by the Family Court, Udaipur on the petition filed by the appellant (Case No.175/2009) under Section 19 read with Section 22 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 seeking maintenance from the respondent, the father of her deceased husband.

The Family Court has declined the prayer made by the appellant for provision of her maintenance as against her father-in-law, inter alia, with the findings that as such, the respondent was not in possession of any property belonging to the appellant or her husband and was not an earning member.

Upon taking up of the matter, the learned counsel for the parties submitted that the matter had been discussed in the Mediation Center too but as the parties could not finally arrive at a mutually acceptable figure of the amount of maintenance, the proposition for settlement did not materialize.

After having examined the record and looking to the overall circumstances of the case, when we expressed our prima facie view that some provision for maintenance of the appellant, who happens to be the wife of the deceased son of the respondent, deserves to be made, the learned counsel for the appellant, in the fiRs.place, DBCMA No.1524/2012 2 submitted that reducing her claim, the appellant would be willing to receive an amount of Rs.3,500/- per month towards maintenance.

The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that though the respondent is not having any direct source of income but, looking to the circumstances and the status of the appellant, he would be willing to make a provision of about Rs.2,500/- per month for the maintenance of the appellant until she does not remarry.

On the submissions so made, when we have suggested that looking to the minor nature variation in the propositions of the parties, some flexibility on either side may be of better discretion, the learned counsel for the parties submitted that the appellant may be awarded Rs.3,000/- per month towards maintenance from or after the date of the order in the present appeal and, for the preceding period commencing from the date of application, she may be allowed Rs.2,000/- per month subject to the stipulation that the respondent may be allowed to make payment of arrears in 3 installments; and the amount of maintenance be made payable only until the appellant remarries.

The proposition so stated by the learned counsel appear to be fair as also reasonable; and having examined of the record, we are also of the considered view that such an order deserves to be made.

Therefore, and in view of the above, the proposition as stated by the learned counsel for the parties, which appear to be reasonable, lawful and fair, is approved.

Accordingly, the judgment and decree as passed by the Family Court, Udaipur is set aside.

The petition filed by the appellant is partly allowed in the manner that : (i) the appellant would be entitled to receive the amount of maintenance @ Rs.2,000/- per month from DBCMA No.1524/2012 3 the date of filing of the application, i.e., 05.05.2009 until 30.11.2013; and (ii) from 01.12.2013, the appellant shall be entitled to receive from the respondent an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month towards maintenance but her entitlement shall continue until she has not contacted second marriage.

As regards the arrears payable towards the amount of maintenance, i.e., @ Rs.2,000/- per month commencing from 05.05.2009 until 30.11.2013, the respondent shall make such payment in 3 equal installments, the fiRs.one to be payable by 31.12.2013; the second installment shall be payable by 31.03.2014; and the third installment by 30.06.2014.

The respondent shall however, continue to make payment of the amount of Rs.3,000/- per month commencing from 01.12.2014.

The payment shall be made by deposit in the bank account of the appellant (particulars whereof will be supplied by the appellant to the respondent) or by making deposit in the Family Court, Udaipur.

Such payment shall be made month by month and in any case, on or before 7th day of the succeeding month.

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

No costs.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J.

(DINESH MAHESHWARI),J.

cpgoyal/-


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //