^ ^^ -/^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FIRST APPEAL (MISC.). H8 Of6bISZOJl,. . . ^ ? '..^:w^''"" ..- f'Sf!!^^ ^:tii 1.'5&S^"" -y RESPONDENT .^.RAMASWAMY, S/0 PARITRO, AGED- 47 YEARS, OCCUPATION- SERVICE, R/0 OPPOSITE GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL, NAHARPARA, NEAR GANESH CHOWK, G. CABIN, B.M.Y, CHARODA, DISTRICT-DURG (C.G) - Versus - 1. KUMAM GULABI D/0 RAMASWAMI, AGED-15 YEARS. 2. THABIRBAG, S/0 RAMASWAMI, AGED-8 YEARS "s,: (Both minors are through their mother Smt. Mangara^ bai, W/o Ramaswami, aged-42 years, r/o Sakin Naharpara, near Ganesh Chowk, G cabin, Charoda, B.M.Y, disti-ict Durg (c.g) APPEAL UND^ SECTIQN 19111 OF FAMILY COURTS ACT.1984 '^:E:^\ '";<?\ y'^ ''*>. ^A ^ %^e^£^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. I.M.QUDDUSI & HON'BLE MR. G. MINHAJUDDIN. JJ. Appellant Respondents First Appeal (M) No. 48 of 2011 Ramaswamy Vs Kumari Gulabi anc| another y.-6 Judament For Consideratjon Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge , ^.12.2011 HON'BLE SHRI I.M. QUDDUSI. J 3 <^^<- Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge K Post For Judament On K December.2011 Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. I.M.QUDDUSI & HON'BLE MR. G. MINHAJUDDIN. JJ ^ Appellant Respondents First Appeal (M) No. 48 of 2011 Ramaswamy Vs Kumari Gulat)i and another Present: Mr. S. Rathod, counsel for the appellant. Mr. B.P. Singh, counsel forthe respondents. JUDGMENT (Deliveredon l^—^ 2-",2011) Per G. Minhaiuddin. J 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 19(1) ofthe Family Courts Act, 1984 against the order dated 9.8.2010 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg in Misc. Civil Case No.24/10, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been ordered to pay Rs.2000/- p.m. to each of the minor respondents towards their education and maintenance and in addition thereto, to pay, Rs. 1 lac to each of the minor respondents towards marriages expgnses before 7 days of their marriages. 2. Brief facts of the case, as per averments made in application under Sectioh 18 read with Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (in short "the Act, 1956"), are that out of the wedlock between Mangri Bai and the appellant, the respondents were born. Respondents No. 1 & 2 are aged about 15 & 8 years and studying in Class-X and Class-V, respectively (at the time of filing of _i: ^^^^^£&K^ff^ ^ 0^" the above application). In their community, a girl is married at the age of 18-19 years. Since Mangri Bai, mother ofthe respondents and wife of the appellant, has no sourceof income, and she is somehow maintaining their children/respondents by doing labour work, therefore, the appellant, being father of respondent No.1 Ku. Gulabi and a permanent employee of Indian Railways, whereby he is drawing salary of Rs.10,490/- per month, is liable for bearing the expenses towards marriage of respondent No.1. Similarly, - respondent No.2 is son of the appellant and therefore, the appellant is also liable to pay maintenance for his better education and marriage. Thus, with the aforesaid averments, Mangri Bai, being natural guardian of the respondents, on their behalf claimed maintenance @ Rs.2,50,000/- for each of the respondents from the appellant for their education, maintenance and marriage expenses. 3. Though the appellant, in his written statement, has accepted that Mangri Bai is his wife and the respondents are their children and it is his moral responsibility to bear the expenses to be incurred in their education, maintenance and marriages, but he had contended that he will bear those expenses only when the respondents come to reside with him. In addition to this, he has alSo contended that the application of the respondents is liable to be rejected as it is for future exp6nses, which have been claimed on the higher side. A 4. Heard learn^d counsel for the parties and perused the LCR as also the impugned order. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that that the averments ma.de in the application under Section 18 read with Section 20 of the Act, 1956 does not disclose the cause of action and ^fw/K.f^^'WW^KS^jfK^t^.^ii^SK^isa^ ^ ^ therefore, the application filed under the above provisions for grant of maintenance and marriage expenses on behalf of the respondents ought to have been rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(a) of the CPC. The second limb of his argument is that respondent No.2 Thabirbag being son of the appellant is not entitled for his marriage expenses and in this connection, he has drawn attention of this Court towards the provisions as contained in Section 3(b) and (c), Section 20(2) of the Act, 1956 as well as SectionS ofthe Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 6. The third limb of his argument is that respondent No.1 Ku. Gulabi, who is daughter of the appellant and has attained majority, is not entitled for maintenance in view of sub-sections (2) & (3) of Section 20 of the Act, 1 956 because there is neither any pleading nor any evidence to show that respondent No.1 is unable to maintain herself. He has further contended that on the basis of application filed under Section 18 read with Section 20 of the Act, 1956, no relief can be granted to the respondents as no prayer has been made on behalf of the respondents for the present expenses and all the relief sought are for future expenses. The application has been said to be barred in view of the provisions of Order 7 Rule 1 (g) and Order 2 Rule 2(3) .oftheCPC. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the respondents and their mother Smt. Mangri Bai have claimed maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. from the present appellant and in that proceedihgs, a compromise was entered into between the parties, pursuant to which the respondents as well as their mother had relinquished their right to maintenance on receiving a lumpsum amount of Rs. 25,000/- and on the basis of said compromise, the w :8%;i- said proceedings were terminated in full satisfaction of their claim. Therefore, now the respondents are not entitled for any maintenance under Section 18 read with Section 20 of the Act, 1956. 8. In addition to oral arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted written arguments. 9. On the contrary, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has supported the impugned order and submitted that the same is quite legal and proper and calls for no interference. 10.The application for maintenance and marriage expenses under Seetion 18 read with Section 20 of the Act, 1956 was filed on behalf of the respondents by their natural guardian mother Mangri Bai. Section 18 of the Act, 1956 comes under Chapter-lll and relates to "Maintenance of wife", whereas Section 20 relates to "Maintenance ofchildren and aged parents", which reads as under: "20. Maintenance of Children and aged parents. - (1) Subject to the provisions of this section a Hindu is bound, during his or her lifetime, to maintain his or her legitimate or illegitimate children and his or her aged or infirm parents. , (2) A legitimate or illegitimate child may claim maintenance from his or her father or mother so long as the child is a minor. .- ; (3) The obligation of a person to maintain his or'her aged or infirra parent or a daughter who is unmarried extends in so far as the parent or the unmarried daughter, as the case may be, is unable to maintain himself or herself out of his or her gwn earnings or other property. fc'.s Explanation. - In this section "parent" includes a childless step-mother." 11. By the impugned order, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, while allowing the application in part, has ordered that the present appellant shall pay to each of the respondents for their education and maintenance Rs.2,000/- per month and in addition to this, shall also pay Rs. 1 lac to each of the respondents towards their marriage expenses before one week of solemnization oftheir marriages. 12.Now the question is whether the j'espondents are entitled to claim maintenance from their father/appellant? 13. It is not in dispute that Smt. Mangri Bai is wife of the appellant and out of their wedlock, the respondents were born. In the cause title of the application, the respondents have been shown to be aged about 15 and 8 years respectively. As per statement of Smt. Mangri Bai, mother of the respondents and wife of the appellant, she is doing labour work and maintaining her children/respondents. It is not in dispute that the appellant is a permanent employee of Indian Railways. Although it has not been specifically pleaded in the application under Section 18 read with Section 20 of the Act, 1956 that the respondents are unable to maintain themselves, but the rules of pleadings, as enshrined in Order 6 of the CPC, are not strictly applicable to application for maintenance under the Act, 1956 as they are applicat?le to a plaint and written statement in a civil suit. 14. Thus, looking to the .fact that at the time of presentation of the above application, the respondents were aged about 15 and 8 years respectively and were studying in Class-X and Class V respectively, it is clear that they are unable to maintain themselves and are !•) ^ dependents on their mother Smt. Mangri Bai. The application was filed before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, on 6.9.2007 and at that time, the respondents were aged about 15 and 8 years respectively. As such, at present, respondent No.1 Ku. Gulabi must be aged about 18-19 years and respondent No. 2 Thabirbag must aged about 12-13 years. As such, both the-respondents are entitled to claim maintenance from their father/appellant under the provisions of Section 20 read with Section 3 (b) & (c) of the Act, 1956. Even after attaining majority, as respondent No.1 is the unmarried daughter of the appellant and unable to maintain herself, she is entitled to claim maintenance under the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 20 of the Act, 1956 from her father/appellant. 15. By the impugned order, Rs. 2000/- per month has been ordered to be paid to each of the respondents for their education and maintenance, which looking to the present value of rupee, cannot be said to be excessive, rather it is on the lower side. As such, the impugned order granting maintenance allowance @ Rs2000/- p.m. to each of the respondents cannot be said to be suffering from illegality or infirmity and the same deserves to be affirmed. 16. So far the grant of marriage expenses for the marriage of the respondents is concerned, as per provisions of Section 3(b), only respondent No.1 Ku. Gulabi is entitled for marriage expenses and not re^pondenf No.2. However, looking to the present value of rupee, awardingof Rs.1 lac to meet the marriage expenses of daughter respondent No.1 cannot be said to be excessive. As such, the order regarding grant of marriage expenses in respect of respondent No.2 being not in accord^nce with law, cannot be sustained, whereas the ":";"':"'?'; -!s''i i'^S^^§8^iS S'=« ^'< order granting marriage expenses in respect of respondent No.1, who is unmarried daughter of the appellant, suffers from no illegality or infirmity and deserves to be affirmed. 17. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned order, so far as it relates to grant of marriage expenses of Rs.1 lac to respondent No.2, is hereby set aside. However, the impugned order, so far as it relates to grant of Rs.2000/- p.m. towards maintenance to each of the respondents and Rs. 1 lac towards marriages expenses of respondent No.1 and cost ofthe petition is hereby affirmed. Sd/- DR. LM-Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge