IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. RSA No. : 435/2010 Decided on:6.12.2010 ________________________________________________ Smt. Bhuvneshwari and others. …Appellants. Versus Smt. Khampi Devi and another. … Respondents. __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the appellants : Mr. Haresh Sood, Advocate. For the Respondents :Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj, Advocate. ________________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. This Regular Second Appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.6.2010 passed by the learned District Judge, Kullu in Civil Appeal No.64 of 2009. 2. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal are that the plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter referred to as ‘plaintiff’ for convenience sake) instituted a suit for maintenance under the provisions of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. According to the averments 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 contained in the plaint, one Thakru was owner in possession of the land, detailed in para 2 of the plaint. He died in the year 1988 and after his death the land devolved upon his sons, namely, Sher Singh defendant-respondent (hereinafter referred to as ‘defendant’ for convenience sake) and Ali Ram, now deceased, as per will. Plaintiff is the widow of Thakru. Plaintiff was kept nicely by the defendant, however, she was turned out after the death of Thakru in March, 2004. Plaintiff had no source of income and could not maintain herself. Appellants- defendants are the widow and children of Ali Ram, i.e. plaintiff’s daughter-in-law and grand-daughter, respectively. They have inherited the estate of Ali Ram. Defendants are allegedly earning Rs. 10,000/- per month from the property. According to the plaintiff, the defendants are duty bound and there is willful refusal and neglect in the discharge of their duty, without reasonable cause and they be directed to provide maintenance allowance @ Rs. 2,000/- per month and the suit property be put under charge towards maintenance amount. 3. Defendant Sher Singh has filed a separate written statement. According to him, the plaintiff was residing with him in his house and she was looked after and maintained by him and neither was she turned out from the house nor he has refused to maintain her. Defendant Bhuvneshwari and her two 3 daughters filed joint written statement and contested the suit. According to Bhunveshwari, she inherited a small chunk of land from Ali Ram, husband. It was difficult to maintain her and her minor children, namely, Puja and Sunita. She left the matrimonial house and settled at quite far off place. The replication was filed by the plaintiffs. 4. The trial court framed issues on 15.5.2007. The trial court decreed the suit partly whereby defendant Sher Singh was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- per month, as maintenance allowance to the plaintiff, during her life time. The suit qua defendants No. 2 to 4, i.e. Bhuvneshwari, Kumari Puja and Kumari Sunita, was dismissed. Plaintiff preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Kullu seeking maintenance from Bhuvneshwari. The appeal was partly allowed and the plaintiff was held entitled for maintenance @ Rs. 300/- per month from Bhuvneshwari. Hence, the present Regular Second Appeal. 5. Mr. Haresh Sood has supported the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. 6. Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj has supported the judgment and decree passed by both the courts below. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 4 8. It is duly proved on record that Sh. Thakru was the owner in possession of the land mentioned in para 2 of the plaint. He died in the year 1988. His property devolved upon Sher Singh and Ali Ram, predecessor-in–interest of the appellants-defendants, as per will of the deceased. The defendants have not specifically denied that the property has devolved upon them in their written statements. 9. Plaintiff has appeared as PW-1. She has led her evidence by filing affidavit Ex.PW-1/A. She has deposed that she used to reside with her husband and after his death, she started living with Ali Ram. After the death of Ali Ram, she was ousted and no provision was made for her maintenance. She further deposed that she was residing alone and Sher Singh did not pay any thing to her and it was difficult for her to maintain herself. 10. Case of defendant Sher Singh was that the plaintiff was residing with him in the old house and he was maintaining her. Sher Singh has appeared as DW-1. He has not deposed that the plaintiff was residing with him. The trial court has partly decreed the suit and directed Sher Singh to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- per month, as maintenance to the plaintiff. 11. Mr. Haresh Sood has strenuously argued that the plaintiff herself has stated in her cross-examination that she was 5 not interested in seeking maintenance from Bhuvneshwari. Plaintiff was 60 years old at the time when her statement was recorded on 20.9.2007. She is a rustic lady. In her plaint, she has specifically asked for the maintenance from all the defendants, including Bhuvneshwari. Case of the plaintiff, in a nutshell, was that since the defendants have inherited the property of her husband, they were duty bound to maintain her. Rather, in the written statement filed by Bhuvneshwari, she has offered to maintain the plaintiff in case she resides with her. 12. Mr. Haresh Sood has further argued that his clients are not in a position to maintain the plaintiff. It is not in dispute that Bhuvneshwari had inherited the property left by her husband. The learned first appellate court has come to a right conclusion that Bhuvneshwari is duty bound to maintain the plaintiff and as far as minors, namely, Kumari Puja and Kumari are concerned, they are not liable to pay maintenance to their grand-mother. The first appellate court has correctly appreciated the evidence led by the parties while coming to a conclusion that Bhuvneshwari is liable to maintain plaintiff by ordering maintenance of Rs. 300/- per month from her. 13. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no substantial question of law involved in 6 the Regular Second Appeal and the same is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. 6.10.2010. *awasthi*