Failure to prove conversion to Bouddha religion precluded the respondent no.1 from claiming maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, but the minor daughter was held to be a dependent entitled to receive maintenance under Section 21 of the Act.

JUDGMENT

A.S. Chandurkar, J. - The challenge raised in the present proceedings is to the judgment of the Family Court dated 19/05/2014 in Petition No.C-62 of 2007.

2. The respondent no.1 herein claims to be the legally wedded wife of the appellant. According to her, the marriage took place on 20/07/1993 at Anand Mangal Karyalaya, Dhantoli, Nagpur. From the said wedlock the respondent no.1-wife gave birth to a child on 19/09/1994. It is the case of the respondent no.1 that on 07/07/1994, the appellant left her company and thereafter performed another marriage. Since February, 1995, the appellant did not take care of the respondents and hence in 1996, the respondents filed proceedings under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, (for short "the Act of 1956") seeking maintenance of an amount of Rs.3000/- per month for both of them.

3. In the written statement filed by the appellant, the marriage was specifically denied. A stand was taken that the respondent no.1 professed Muslim religion and therefore she was not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 18 of the Act of 1956. All other adverse allegations as made were also denied.

4. After the parties led evidence the trial Court by its judgment dated 25/09/2000 held the respondent entitled to claim maintenance. Being aggrieved by that order the appellant had filed C.R.A. No. 993 of 2000 in this Court which was decided on 24/11/2004. By the said judgment, the order passed by the trial Court was set aside and the proceedings were remanded to the trial Court for fresh adjudication with liberty to the parties to lead fresh evidence.

5. After remand the respondent no.1 examined herself and two witnesses. The appellant did not lead any further evidence. Thereafter, the Family Court by the impugned judgment held the respondents entitled to receive maintenance at the rate of Rs.3000/-each per month from the date of filing of the proceedings. Being aggrieved the appellant-husband has challenged the aforesaid judgment.

6. Shri S.D. Khati, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that while remanding the proceedings this Court has observed that the respondent no.1 was required to prove that she was entitled to claim maintenance under the provisions of the Act of 1956. It was the specific case of the appellant that the respondent no.1 was Mohammedan by birth and therefore she was not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Act of 1956. He referred to the order passed in C.R.A. No. 993 of 2000 and thereafter submitted that the evidence on record after remand was not sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Family Court to entertain the proceedings. Since it was clear that the respondent no.1 was not converted from Muslim religion, she was not entitled to be granted any maintenance. Without prejudice to the aforesaid it was submitted that the amount of maintenance granted is on a higher side and the earning of the appellant was not of such nature to sustain the order of grant of maintenance. On this count it was submitted that the impugned judgment was liable to be set aside.

7. Shri M.E Kariya, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that after remand the respondent no.1 examined herself and other witnesses. It was specifically stated that the respondent no.1 before her marriage had got herself converted to Bouddha religion. He submitted that there was no cross-examination on these material aspects and therefore the Family Court did not commit any error in holding that it had jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings. The other witnesses examined also supported the case of the respondent no.1. Moreover, the income of the appellant was more than Rs.15,000/- per month and in the light of the fact that the respondent no.2 was his daughter the amount of maintenance granted was reasonable. He therefore submitted that appeal was liable to be dismissed.

8. In the light of aforesaid submissions, the following points arise for adjudicatio