Daya Chaudhary, J.

1. Appellant-defendant (since died) through L.Rs. has filed the present second appeal to challenge judgment and decree dated 03.01.2014 passed by the trial Court as well as judgment and decree dated 01.11.2014 passed by the lower Appellate Court. Plaintiff-respondents filed a suit under Sections 19 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act, 1956') for recovery of maintenance allowance stating therein that they are indigent persons and are not possessing sufficient means to pay court fee. Plaintiff No. 2-Karanbir Singh was minor son of plaintiff No. 1 and his age was about 4 ½ years at that time. He filed suit through his mother and natural guardian. Plaintiff No. 1 is widow of Mehain Singh. Out of wedlock of plaintiff No. 1 with Mehain Singh (now deceased), plaintiff No. 2-Karanbir Singh was born. Mehain Singh was employed as Assistant Hockey Coach in the office of District Sports Officer, Amritsar. He met with an accident and died on 13.10.2004 at Amritsar. After death of Mehain Singh, the dispute arose with regard to service benefits including gratuity, general provident fund, leave encashment and pension of deceased husband of plaintiff No. 1. Widow of Mehain Singh-plaintiff No. 1 and her minor son were turned out from the matrimonial home in the month of January, 2005. Thereafter, they started to reside in the parental house of plaintiff No. 1 at Amritsar. However, the financial condition of parents of plaintiff No. 1 was also not sound whereas the family of deceased husband of plaintiff No. 1 was having agricultural land and other sources of income. The suit filed by plaintiffs was decreed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 03.01.2014 and plaintiff No. 2 was allowed future maintenance @ Rs. 10,000/- per month till he attained the age of majority. It was held by the trial Court that the marriage of plaintiff No. 1-Kawaljit Kaur took place on 07.03.2000 and minor Karanbir Singh was born out of said wedlock. Since the marriage took place during the subsistence of marriage of Mehain Singh with his first wife Gurmit Kaur, the marriage being void, plaintiff No. 1 was not held entitled for maintenance from the self acquired property of Ajit Singh (now deceased) and now in the hands of his legal heirs.

2. Aggrieved by said judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the defendant-appellants filed appeal before the Additional District Judge, Amritsar, which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 01.11.2014.

3. Now this regular second appeal has been filed by the L.Rs. of defendant-Ajit Singh to challenge the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that both the Courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence available on record and the plaintiff-respondents were not entitled for any maintenance as after the death of Mehain Singh, they were having eye on the property and service benefits of deceased husband/father. Learned counsel further submits that the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondents was not maintainable and it was liable to be dismissed as it was not properly valued for the purpose of court fee. A specific objection was raised in the written statement that the plaintiff-respondents were not indigent persons and they were having sufficient means. Even no marriage had taken place between plaintiff-respondent No. 1 and Mehain Singh. Mehain Singh was married with Gurmit Kaur and two children were also born out of said wedlock. Learned counsel also submits that neither the marriage between plaintiff No. 1 and Mehain Singh nor the birth of minor son out of said marriage was proved even on the basis of statement of plaintiffs' witnesses. Learned counsel also submits that the maintenance has wrongly been awarded and as such, both the judgments and decrees passed by lower Courts are liable to be set-aside.

5. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the appellants and have also perused