By the Court.—Heard Sri R.S. Gupta, learned counsel for defendant-appellant (herein after referred as ‘appellant’). Even in the revised list, none is present on behalf of plaintiffs-respondents (herein after referred as ‘respondents’), despite sufficient service upon them.

2. This first appeal has been filed under Section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act, 1984’) against judgment and decree dated 22.4.2000 passed by Judge, Family Court, Azamgarh, in Original Suit No. 52 of 1996, whereby suit of plaintiff was partly decreed and Km. Jhuluri, respondent No. 2 was granted Rs. 2000/- as maintenance and legal expenses from June, 1980 to March, 1990 within one month from the date of order and regular payment of maintenance @ Rs. 500/- per month up to 10th of every month.

3. Filing of paper book by appellant is exempted vide order dated 2.4.2015.

4. Brief facts as transpire from record are that respondents filed Original Suit No. 52 of 1996 against appellant in Family Court, Azamgarh for grant of maintenance. Appellant appeared before learned Lower Court and contested suit by filing of written statement and adducing evidence.

5. On 31.8.1996, Court below has framed following issues :

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for maintenance allowances as claimed?

2. Whether the plaintiffs are dependent of opposite party Phirtu ?

3. Whether property can be charged for realization of maintenance belonging to Phirtu ?

4. To what relief, if any one, the plaintiff entitled ?

6. To prove her case, respondents examined Km. Jhuluri as P.W.1 and in documentary evidence filed certified copy of Khatauni paper No. 9-C of Village Sohari and copy of Kutumb Register of Village Khalispur, while appellant has examined himself as D.W.1 and his wife Smt. Prabhawati as D.W.2 and in the documentary evidence, he filed certified copy of Kutumb Register of Village Khalispur, paper No. 48-C.

7. After considering evidence and material available on record, Court-below has recorded findings to the effect that respondent No. 1 Smt. Durgawati is not legally wedded wife of appellant Phirtu and Km. Jhuluri respondent No. 2 is illegal daughter of appellant Phirtu. On the basis of above findings, Trial Court held that respondent No. 1, Smt. Durgawati, is not entitled to get any maintenance from appellant but being his minor illegitimate daughter and dependent on appellant, Km. Jhuluri is entitled to get maintenance from appellant and accordingly decided issue No. 1 and 2 partly in favour of respondents.

8. On the issue No. 3, learned trial Court has recorded findings to the effect that no argument was advanced to justify attachment of appellant’s property for maintenance or creating any charge on that for payment of maintenance. Accordingly, issue No. 3 was decided against respondents.

9. While deciding issue No. 4, learned trial Court has recorded findings to the effect that on the basis of evidence, it is proved that Smt. Durgawati is not legally wedded wife of appellant Phirtu and therefore, she is not entitled to get any maintenance from the appellant. It is also proved that Km. Jhuluri is a minor and illegitimate daughter of appellant, in this capacity, she is entitled to get maintenance from appellant. Accordingly, learned Lower Court has decided that issue in terms that respondent No. 1 Smt. Durgawati is not entitled to get any maintenance from appellant, while respondent No. 2 Km. Jhuluri is entitled to get maintenance @ Rs. 500/- per month from appellant, she was also granted a lump-sum payment of Rs. 2000/- towards maintenance and legal expenses for the period from June 1989 to March, 1990. As such, issue No. 4 is decided in favour of respondent No. 2, accordingly suit filed by respondents is partly decreed.

10. Feeling aggrieved by judgment and decree of Trial Court, appellant has filed, this appeal for quashing of impugned judgment and decree.

11. We have considered arguments raised on behalf of appellant and perused recor