[2025:RJ-JP:2754] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 173/2015 Mali Ram Kurdiya S/o Sh. Jodha Ram, aged about 50 years, resident of Ward No.10, Behind Barala House, Chomu District Jaipur. ----Appellant Versus Smt Jadau D/o Late Sh. Ratan Ram W/o Ghasi Ram, aged about 51 years resident of village Prem Nagar, Bas Badanpura Tehsil Amber District Jaipur. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.P. Garg, Adv. For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment :: 22/01/2025 This civil first appeal has been filed by the appellant- defendant (for short ‘the defendant’) against the judgment and decree dated 07.01.2015 passed by the Additional District Judge No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (for short ‘the trial Court’) in civil suit No.09/2006 whereby the trial Court decreed the plaintiff's suit for recovery and maintenance. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff (for short 'the plaintiff') filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1,81,850/- along with interest and for maintenance amount in which it was stated that plaintiff was married to the defendant 30 years ago from the date of filing of the suit and after marriage one daughter Gayatri born. Due to differences dispute arose between them. On 01.07.1987 consent of both the parties and in presence of Panchas, an agreement was executed and marriage was dissolved. [2025:RJ-JP:2754] (2 of 4) [CFA-173/2015] It was also agreed between the parties that minor daughter would remain with the mother and all the responsibilities would be borne by father for payment of amount in relation to her education and marriage. Plaintiff performed the marriage of Gayatri after taking loan from different sources. As per agreement, she claimed the said amount from the defendant but he had not paid the same to her. Defendant filed the written statement and stated that he had not executed the agreement dated 01.07.1987. No Panch was present at that time. The marriage could not be dissolved by way of agreement. It could only be dissolved by the competent court. The other objections regarding court fee and jurisdiction were also raised and it was stated that maintenance can only be awarded by the family court. So he prayed that the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether in the light of the terms of the agreement dated 01.07.1987 the plaintiff is entitled to get Rs.3,81,580/- with interest of 18% P.A as mentioned in para No.5 of the plaint towards expenses incurred by her on her daughter's marriage and maintenance from the defendant? 2. Whether agreement dated 01.07.1987 was inexecutable being forged, void and ineffective? 3. Whether the trial court had no jurisdiction to hear and try the suit? 4. Whether suit is time barred? 5. Whether the suit filed as a pauper was maintainable as the same was filed without paying the court fees? 6. Relief? [2025:RJ-JP:2754] (3 of 4) [CFA-173/2015] To prove its case, plaintiff got examined herself as PW-1, Bhura Ram as PW-2 and Ramniwas as PW-3. To prove its case, defendant himself got examined as DW-1. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that the trial court had committed error in decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff and had not appreciated the evidence led by the parties. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that plaintiff had not impleaded Gayatri as a party and marriage expenses as well as maintenance have been claimed by the plaintiff herself as a party. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that plaintiff had not examined Gayatri as a witness. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that so- called agreement dated 01.07.1987 was neither executed between the parties, so it had no legal sanctity. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that divorce can only be granted by the competent court and not by way of an agreement. The said agreement was neither registered nor proved by the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that plaintiff had not proved the marriage between her and defendant and failed to prove that Gayatri was their daughter. Plaintiff had not adduced the cogent evidence regarding expenses incurred in the marriage of Gayatri. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that trial court had committed error while deciding issue regarding jurisdiction of the civil court because as per Section 8 of the Family Court Act, the jurisdiction to get maintenance and other [2025:RJ-JP:2754] (4 of 4) [CFA-173/2015] expenses vests with the Family Court. So, judgment and decree dated 07.01.2025 passed by the trial court deserves to be set aside. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant and perused the impugned order. It is an admitted position that defendant had divorced the plaintiff through agreement dated 01.07.1987. The said agreement was proved by the plaintiff. In her evidence, defendant had not denied the signature of his father Jodha Ram on so-called agreement. PW2-Bhura Ram and PW3-Ramniwas also in their evidence proved the agreement (Ex.P1). Defendant in his cross- examination admitted that he had solemnized the second marriage after getting the divorce but he had given evasive reply regarding divorce granted by him in the year 1987 to the plaintiff. Rather he admitted that after execution of the agreement, he had solemnized the second marriage in 1988. Plaintiff in her evidence had proved the expenses incurred in the marriage as well as maintenance to be sought from the defendant. So, in my considered opinion, the trial court had not committed any error in decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff. So, present appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) dismissed. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J AVINASH/JATIN /52