1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA(MAT) No. 349 of 2023 Nirmal Thawait S/o Late Heeralal Thawait Aged About 75 Years R/o Vijay Electricals Ward No.25, Near Shanti Lodge Street, Kumharpara, Juna Bilaspur, Police Station City Kotwali, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) Mo. No. 9770174304 ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Meena Thawait W/o Late Vijay Thawait Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Kotmi Sonar, Police Station And Tahsil Akaltara, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 - Abhishek Thawait S/o Late Vijay Thawait Aged About 4 Years Through Next Friend Mother Smt. Meena Thawait Aged About 26 Years, W/o Late Vijay Thawait, R/o Village Kotmi Sonar, Police Station And Tahsil Akaltara, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Sourabh Agrawal on behalf of Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate Hon’ble Smt. Rajani Dubey,J. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, J. Judgment On Board 21.04.2025 Per Sachin Singh Rajput, J. 1) This appeal under Section 19 (1) of the Family Court Act, 1984 (for short ‘Act of 1955’) is filed being aggrieved by the judgment dated 28.11.2023 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur District- Bilaspur C.G. (for short ‘family court’) in civil suit No. 378/A/2018. 2) By the impugned judgment and decree, the civil suit filed by the respondents under Section 19 (1) of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2025.04.24 14:46:53 +0530 2 Act of 1956) was allowed and the appellant was directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month to respondent No. 1 and Rs. 1,000/- per month to respondent No. 2 total Rs. 3,000/- per month from the date of judgment i.e. 28.11.2023. 3) It is an admitted fact that the husband of respondent No. 1, father of respondent No. 2 and son of appellant Vijay Thawait passed away on 17.08.2017. Respondent No. 1 is the widow daughter-in -law and respondent No. 2 is the grand-son of the appellant. 4) Pleadings of the application reflects that the marriage of the respondent No. 1 was solemnized with the son of of appellant Vijay Thawait as per social rites and rituals on 28.04.2013. Out to their wedlock respondent No. 2 was born who at present is residing with the respondent No.1. After the death of the husband of respondent No. 1, a serious issue has arisen for the livelihood of the respondents. The respondents were pressurized by the appellant to throw out from the house. The cruelty so increased that at present the respondent No. 1 is residing in her maternal home. In the month of March, 2018 respondent No. 1 demanded maintenance for herself and for her child or let her run the said shop or pay the rent of the said house/shop upon which the appellant scolded her and drove her away. It is further pleaded that the appellant runs the Vijay Electricals shop and earn Rs. 40,000/- per month by doing motor winding and other work besides this appellant also having agricultural land in Village - Ranigaon and sufficiently earns from it. Therefore, claiming maintenance amount of Rs. 20,000/- from the appellant. 5) The appellant filed the written statement and admitted that his son Vijay Thawait passed away on 17.08.2017. It is further pleaded that the appellant is a 75 years old ailing person. It is further pleaded that his deceased son Vijay Thawait used to take care of the appellant and his wife, arrange for their medical treatment etc. during his lifetime. After the death of his son, the 3 appellant has no source of income and the elder son has been living separately for 10 years, due to which the appellant has become helpless. It is further pleaded that appellant is taking care of his wife and unmarried daughters and fulfilling their needs. It is further pleaded that his deceased son Vijay Thawait was extremely distressed due to the harassment of his wife i.e. respondent No. 01, due to which his health deteriorated and he died. It is further pleaded that his deceased son Vijay Thawait had acquired land Khasra No. 1651 and Kha. No. 1652 area 1.38 acre situated in village Ranigaon Tehsil - Kota District - Bilaspur in partition during his lifetime. The remaining 0.25 acre agricultural land belongs to appellant including his sons and daughters. It has been further pleaded that his deceased son Vijay Thawait was addicted to gambling and lost Rs.1,50,000/- in gambling and demanded partition from the appellant. Therefore, the appellant sold the property for Rs. 1,38,000/- through a registered sale deed dated 28.09.2012 and gave the money to his son Vijay Thawait. Thus, no property of his son Vijay Thawait is left with the appellant. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the application. 6) On the basis of above broad pleading, the learned Family Court framed the following issues. i. Whether the appellants are unable to maintain themselves? ii. Whether the appellants are entitled to get maintenance under Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 from her father-in-law Nirmal Thawait? iii. Relief and cost? 7) In order to prove the case, the respondent No.1 examined herself as witness and appellant examined himself as sole witness. 8) After assessment of the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court decided the issues in favour of the respondents. By the impugned judgment and decree, which is assailed before this Court. 4 9) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the finding recorded by the learned Family Court with regard to issue No. 1 & 2 is perverse, contrary to the evidence on record. He further submits that learned Family Court has not appreciated the evidence brought before it through its proper perspective and wrongly allowed the suit. He further submits that the appellant has no independent source of income and therefore the appellant is not in a position to pay the maintenance of total Rs. 3, 000/- per months to the respondents. He submits that the deceased son of the appellant Vijay Thawait has already received his share by way of partition, therefore, finding recorded by the learned Family Court cannot sustained the scrutiny of this Court. Hence appeal deserves to be allowed. 10) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the learned Family Court after meticulous examination of evidence available on record decided the issue No. 1 & 2 in favour of the respondents. He submits that there is no dispute to the fact that the respondent No.1 is the daughter-in-law and respondent No.2 is the grand son of the appellant and the appellant is bound to maintain them. The meritorious finding recorded by the learned Family Court does not requires any interference and appeal has no merit and deserves to be dismissed. 11) Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12) Respondent No. 1 in her evidence before the learned Family Court deposed that she is the daughter-in-law and respondent No.2 is the grand son of the appellant. It is also deposed that the marriage between Vijay Thawait and herself was solemnized on 28.04.2013 and respondent No. 2 is the son who was born out by the wedlock. She further deposed that his husband Vijay Thawait passed away on 17.08.2017 and they were dependent upon him. It has been further pleaded that her husband use to run a shop namely Vijay 5 Electrical and was earning handsome money and after the death of her husband Vijay Thawait, they were facing a serious problem of livelihood. She further deposed that no amount of maintenance is being paid to them and she was thrown out of house along with her son i.e. respondent No.2 by the appellant, therefore, she is residing in her maternal home with her son. It is further pleaded that the appellant is running the Vijay Electrical shop and earn Rs. 40,000/- per month by doing motor winding and other work besides this appellant has agricultural land in Village - Ranigaon and sufficiently earns from it. In her cross-examination she admits that there are two shops in the house and she could earn by running one shop. She further stated that her father-in-law is ready to born out the expenses if she reside along with her child with him. She denied that presently her father-in-law is earning Rs. 5,000/- per month. 13) The appellant stated in his evidence before this Court that he is 77 years old ailing person and his wife is 70 years old. He also deposed in the line of written statement that Rs. 1,78,000/- was paid to his deceased son Vijay Thawait by a registered sale deed dated 28.09.2012 and no property is left to him of his deceased son. He further deposed that father of respondent No.1 is having a betel shop, 10 acres agricultural land and a house. He has further stated that the respondent No.1 is running a general store in Kotmi Sunar and earns Rs. 2,00,000/- to 2,50,000/- per year. 14) From the evidence on record it appears that the respondent No. 1 is saying that she has no source of income and she is dependent upon her parents to survive along with her son. On the other hand, the appellant is saying that the appellant is old aged person and the properties falling in the share of his deceased son Vijay Thawait had already given to him and no property is left to him. 6 15) While deciding the issue No. 1 & 2, the learned Family Court gave a categorical finding that the respondent No.1 is the daughter-in-law and respondent No.2 is the grand son. It has been further observed that no evidence was brought by the appellant to substantiate that the respondents are able to maintain themselves. It has been further observed that no document has been filed by the appellant to substantiate that any property is in the name of respondent No.1. The learned Family Court also gave a finding that the appellant has not denied the joint in the property in his possession and only stated that the share of the property has already been received by his deceased son Vijay Thawait but the said fact could not be proved by documentary evidence. 16) Considering the all aspects available on record and also taking into consideration that Section 21 & 22 of Act of 1956, the learned Family court allowed the suit and directed to pay the respondents Rs. 3,000/- per months. The finding recorded by the learned Family Court appears to be reasonable and based upon proper appreciation of evidence available on record. It cannot said to be perverse and contrary to the evidence. Hence we do not find any scope for interference in the impugned judgment and decree. 17) Accordingly, the appeal sans merit is hereby dismissed. 18) Decree be drawn. 19) No order as to cost. Sd/- Sd/- 20) (Rajani Dubey) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge H. Ansari