I N THE HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAI NI TAL Appeal Fr om Or der No. 3 8 7 of 2 0 0 6 (1) Smt. Sujata Middha, W/ o late Sri Kishore Kumar Middha, (2) Gaurav Middha, minor S/ o Late Sri Kishore Kumar Middha, (3) Akshay Middha, minor S/ o Late Sri Kishore Kumar Middha, (4) Km. Garima Middha, minor daughter of late Sri Kishore Kumar Middha, Appellants no. 2 to 4 minors, through their mother, guardian and next friend Smt. Sujata Middha, All resident of AGM-26, Galla Mandi, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. ………………Appellants. Ver su s (1) Smt. Nirmala Rani, W/ o Late Sri Sant Lal, (2) Kamal Kumar Middha, S/ o Late Sri Sant Lal, Both residents of AGM-26, Galla Mandi, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. ......…………Respondents. Sri Sudhir Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants. Sri D.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents. Hon ’ble Pr afu lla, C. Pan t , J. Hon ’ble Dh ar am Veer , J. [ Oral-Prafulla C. Pant, J.] This appeal, preferred under Section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984, read with Order XLIII, rule 1(a) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against the order dated 20.12.2005, passed by the Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar, in Suit No. Nil of 2005 between the parties. (2) It appears that the appellants presented a plaint before the trail court under the provisions of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, seeking decree against the defendants directing them to pay Rs.1,00,000/ - per annum to the plaintiffs as maintenance out of the timber business and saw mill, which were being run as a business of joint Hindu family. The trial court directed the plaintiffs to amend the plaint and simultaneously holding that it has no jurisdiction to try the suit ordered that plaint be returned to the plaintiffs. (3) Learned counsel for the appellants drew attention of this Court to clause (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 7 of Family Court Act, 1984, and further referred to Section 19 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. Having considered said provision of law, we are of the view that the trial court has erred in law in holding that it has no jurisdiction to grant the decree of maintenance under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. As such, the direction to return the plaint cannot be upheld by this Court. However, as far as the direction to amend the petition is concerned, we do not find any error committed by the trial court. (4) Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 20th December 2005, passed by Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar, in Suit No. Nil of 2005, between the parties, is set aside to the extent the trial court has held that it has no jurisdiction to try the suit. Also the order directing to return the plaint to the plaintiffs is set aside. However, the order to amend the plaint does not require any interference from this Court. No order as to costs. (5) The plaintiffs are allowed to incorporate the amendment as directed by the trial court within a period of fifteen days after the record of the lower court is received by said court. (Dharam Veer, J.) (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 10.04.2008 NS