IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 4307 of 2008 Date of decision: 17.4.2009 Avtar Singh … Appellant. Versus. Jagjit Kaur … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate, for the appellant. … ARVIND KUMAR, J: This is defendant’s second appeal directed against the judgment and decree of the Courts below whereby the suit of the plaintiff seeking maintenance and marriage expenses for herself under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act,1956, has been decreed. Plaintiff brought the present suit in forma pauperis pleading therein that defendant No. 1, Avtar Singh (appellant herein) is her real father while defendant No.2 is his alleged second wife. Plaintiff alleged that her real mother, namely, Jaswant Kaur, had died and after the marriage of her brother, defendant No.1 started neglecting her(plaintiff). Plaintiff further alleged that subsequently, she came to know that defendant No.1 had developed illicit relations with defendant No. 2 who was already wedded wife of one Dayal Singh. Plaintiff and her brother asked defendant No.1 not to do like this but to no avail. Later, on 2.7.2000, defendant No.1 came and stayed for one night with the plaintiff and took away all the gold ornaments belonging to her mother besides valuable clothes on the morning of 3.7.2000, by telling the plaintiff and her brother that he would deposit all the gold ornaments in the bank locker. Plaintiff further stated that she being a college student studying in B.A. I would be of marriageable age soon and defendant No.1 having neglected her, she was pursuing her studies at the mercy of her brother and uncle as she was not having any movable or immovable property in her own name. Thus, in the RSA No. 4307 of 2008 -2- suit, she claimed Rs.4000/- per month for her maintenance and about Rs.6,00,000/- for her marriage. It was stated by her that defendant No.1 being an bank officer, was receiving a salary of more than Rs.17,000/- besides owing movable and immovable property. Upon notice of the suit, written statement was filed by the defendants wherein it was stated that defendant No.1 had contracted second marriage with defendant No.2 in a legal manner since defendant No.2 had got a decree of divorce from her previous husband from a competent Court at Amritsar. Rest of the averments made in the plaint were denied in the written statement. Trial Court upon appreciation of evidence adduced on record, vide judgment and decree dated 3.6.2005, decreed the suit of the plaintiff holding her entitled to maintenance at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month from the date of filing of suit i.e. 11.11.2003 and further holding her entitled to get the marriage expenses of Rs.2,00,000/- from the defendant. However, the plaintiff was directed to affix court-fee on receipt of amount of recovery by her from the defendant No.1. Feeling aggrieved, defendant Avtar Singh preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the first appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 21.4.2008. Hence, the present second appeal by him . Both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence adduced on record, have concurrently held that the plaintiff is entitled to the grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month besides Rs.2,00,000/- as expenses towards her marriage, from her father, i.e. defendant No.1 Avtar Singh. Since during the pendency of the appeal it was brought to notice that plaintiff Jagjit Kaur had got married, it was held by the first appellate Court in its judgment that the amount of maintenance at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month from the date of filing of suit till the marriage of plaintiff while the amount of Rs. 2 lacs would be given by defendant No.1 Avtar Singh, as having been incurred on the marriage of the plaintiff. The relevant observations of the first appellate Court in this regard are in paras 11 and 12 of the judgment which read as under:- “11. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am also of the opinion that during the course of evidence the appellant has hopelessly failed to prove that being bank employee, he is not in a position to pay Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent. It is also RSA No. 4307 of 2008 -3- worth mentioning that it has come in evidence that the respondent has got married by now and as such, the appellant is liable to pay maintenance amount at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month from the date of suit till she got married and as such, the judgment and decree dated 3.6.2005 qua the maintenance amount of Rs.3000/- per month cannot be said to be illegal. 12. As regards expenses of Rs. 2 lacs as marriage expenses, I am further of the opinion that the judgment and decree dated 3.6.2005 in this regard is also not illegal. Since it has been admitted by the appellant that his daughter Jagjit Kaur respondent has got married, it means when the appellant has not participated in the marriage of the respondent, her marriage has been arranged by her brother Inderjit Singh and her uncle. In the present days of rising prices, I think with the amount of Rs. 2 lacs, it cannot be said that the marriage of a daughter is arranged upto the satisfaction of a common man. In think, in these days, if a marriage is to be arranged by spending Rs. 2 lacs, then it can be said to pass time just to send the daughter from the house of the parents. It cannot be considered to be a marriage arranged by giving sufficient gold ornaments and by giving some motor vehicle. In the marriage in which a sum of Rs. 2 lacs is spent, only food can be provided to the guests and barat and some clothes and gifts can be given to the daughter. As such, it cannot be said that if the appellant has been directed by the Court to pay Rs. 2 lacs as expenses incurred on the marriage of the respondent, any illegality has been committed by the lower Court. With these observations, I have come to the conclusion that since reasoned judgment and decree dated 3.6.2005 has been passed by the learned trial Court, I feel no need to interfere in the same; rather, I uphold the judgment and decree dated 3.6.2005 passed RSA No. 4307 of 2008 -4- by the learned trial Court directing the appellant to pay Rs. 3000/- per month as maintenance till her marriage and Rs. 2 lacs incurred on the marriage of the respondent. … … …”. Further, it is apparent from Section 3(b)(ii) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, that the claim for maintenance includes claim for marriage expenses. In this regard, reference can be made to a judgment of the Kerala High Court in Sivadasan v. Santha, 2000(3) RCR(Civil) 400. Thus, the findings arrived at by the Courts below are well-reasoned and thus, call for no interference by this Court. Nothing has been shown that the same suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record. No question of law, muchless substantial, arises in the present appeal. Consequently, the appeal being without any merit is hereby dismissed in limine. April 17, 2009 ( ARVIND KUMAR) JS JUDGE