Advocates:
['SUNIL SAHU', '', 'SUMIT SHRIVASTAVA', 'Prasoon Agrawal']

1

FAM No.102 of 2017

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

FAM No. 102 of 2017

1. Balaram Kesharwani S/o Late Shri Tiharu Kesharwani, Aged About 75

Years R/o Bhoghapara, Sheorinarayan, Thana Sheorinarayan, Tahsil

Nawagarh, Civil And Revenue District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.

---- Appellant

Versus

1. Smt. Malti Bai Kesharwani W/o Late Shri Pushpamitra @ Butari, Aged

About 35 Years R/o Bhoghapara, Sheorinarayan, Thana

Sheorinarayan, Tahsil Nawagarh, Civil And Revenue District Janjgir-

Champa, Chhattisgarh.

2. Om Kesharwani S/o Late Shri Pushpamitra @ Butari, Aged About 5

Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Malti Bai

Kesharwani, R/o Bhoghapara, Sheorinarayan, Thana Sheorinarayan,

Tahsil Nawagarh, Civil And Revenue District Janjgir-Champa,

Chhattisgarh, At Present R/o C/o Bharat Kesharwani, Rohit Kirana

Stores Damdama Chowk Hasuwa, Thana Gidhouri, Tahsil Kasdol, Civil

And Revenue District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

3. Narayan Kesharwani S/o Late Shri Pushpamitra @ Butari, Aged About

3 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Malti Bai

Kesharwani, R/o Bhoghapara, Sheorinarayan, Thana Sheorinarayan,

Tahsil Nawagarh, Civil And Revenue District Janjgir-Champa,

Chhattisgarh, At Present R/o C/o Bharat Kesharwani, Rohit Kirana

Stores Damdama Chowk Hasuwa, Thana Gidhouri, Tahsil Kasdol, Civil

And Revenue District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents

For Appellant

-

Shri Sunil Sahu, Advocate

For Respondents

-

Shri Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate.

2

FAM No.102 of 2017

Hon'be Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

Judgment On Board

By

Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra J.

09-03-2021

1. This appeal under Section 19 (1) of the Family Courts Act would assail

the legality and validity of the impugned Order passed by the Family

Court partly allowing the respondent's application under Section 19

read with Section 22 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act,

1956.

2. Admittedly, respondent No.1 Malti bai was married to appellant's Son

Pushpmitra @ Butari on 14-12-2005 and had two sons out of the said

marriage. Pushpamitra died on 23-10-2014. Since thereafter, she is

residing separate in the same township.

3. According to the respondents, the family owned properties in which her

late husband had share, however, she is not provided any land for

maintenance of herself and her minor sons. Although, from the shops

owned by the family, appellant earns income of Rs.75-90 thousand per

month; and he has agricultural properties at village-Tendua, tehsil-

Bhatgaon ad-measuring 15-16 acres which fetches annual income up

to lacs of rupees, but despite said affluent financial position of the

appellant, the respondents have been provided only one room for

shelter. Therefore, she should be provided monthly maintenance of

Rs.25,000/- for rent of the house, for livelihood, for education of her

sons and other necessary amenities.

3

FAM No.102 of 2017

4. It was the stand of the appellant before the trial Court that respondent's

late husband Pushpamitra was not taking part in the family business as

he was ailing for most of the time being handicapped. The respondent

No.1 has not contributed in any manner in the marriage of her Sister-

in-law and that she has raised the present dispute and initiated

proceeding upon provocation by members of her parental house.

Appellant denied to have any agricultural land in the name of

Pushpamitra and further that she has entered her name in an area ad-

measuring 0.11 acres at Kharaud Road, Sheorinarayan and has

already separated from the family.

5. Both the parties led evidence before the trial Court to substantiate their

respective averments. On appreciation of evidence, the trial Court has

concluded that the appellant has agricultural land at village Tendua.

The appellant's plea before the trial Court that he has already

partitioned the land at Tendua amongst h