The appellant has filed this appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family

Court Act, 1984 against the impugned order dated 05.09.2022 passed in

Civil Suit No.346A/2016 by learned 1^st Additional Principal Judge, Family

Court, Jabalpur.

2.

The relevant facts necessary for deciding this appeal are that

applicants/respondents have filed an application under Section 19(1) read

with Section 21(iii)(v) and Section 22 (i) sub-section (2) of Hindu

Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act

of 1956”) against the appellant who is the father-in-law of respondent

No.1 and grand father of respondent No.2 on the ground that respondent

No.1 was married to late Sunil Vishwakarma (son of appellant) and with

the wedlock of Sunil Vishwakarma and respondent No.1, a child

(respondent no.2) was born. Sunil Vishwakarma died on 30.11.2015, after

3

his death appellant has treated respondents with mental and physical

cruelty and also expelled them from the house without giving any

maintenance to her. It is also pleaded that respondents have no means to

maintain herself and the appellant is a retired employee of Railways and

getting pension of Rs.30,000/- (Thirty Thousand Rupees) monthly and he

has also a rental income of approximately Rs.40,000/- (Forty Thousand

Rupees) per month from the house and her mother-in-law is also getting an

income of Rs.15000/- (Fifteen Thousand Rupees) per month from a

grocery shop which was run by the husband of respondent No.1 in his life

time. It is also pleaded that for expanding the business of the grocery

shop, respondent No.1 has taken a loan from the bank. After the death of

her husband that shop is now managed by the wife of appellant. Hence

prays for maintenance from the appellant.

3.

In reply, the appellant has denied the pleadings of the

applicants/respondents and submits that respondent No.1 is not a legally

wedded wife of late Sunil Vishwakarma and respondent No.1 has

sufficient source to maintain herself and her minor child, hence prayed for

dismissal of the application.

4.

After taking the evidence of both the parties and considering the

argument of the parties, the learned trial Court has passed the impugned

order and awarded Rs.3000/- (Three Thousand Rupees) per month as

maintenance for respondent No.2. Being aggrieved with the impugned

order, this appeal has been filed before this Court.

5.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant

has not inherited any property from the father of respondent No.2,

4

therefore, the appellant has no liability to maintain respondent No.2 and

submits that the appellant is almost 78 years old a retired person and

getting only Rs.15000/-(Fifteen Thousand Rupees) per month as a

pension, and from this amount he has to take care of himself, his wife,

family and grand child also. Therefore, he is not competent to comply with

the order of the learned Family Court to pay the amount of Rs.3000/-

(Three Thousand Rupees) per month to respondent No.2. It is also

submitted that respondent No.1 is living separately since 2007 and was

working in “Real India Mutual Benefit Corporation Limited” and is

earning good amount and respondent No.1 is competent to maintain

herself and respondent No.2.

6.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per Section 19 and

Section 22(1) of the “Act of 1956”, no liability can be made out against

the appellant. He further submits that the order passed by this Court on

02.08.2017 in C.R. No.92/2017 (Annexure A/2), respondents have not

filed any documentary evidence as asked by this Court and learned trial

court has also not complied with the above order while passing the

impugned order. He also submitted that no property has been inherited by

the appellant from the husband and father of respondent no.1 and 2

respectively. In this regard learned counsel of the appellant drew the

attention of this court towards the statement of Rani Vishwakarma (PW-