PATEL v. Ku. Vidya Nirmalkar So-Called

: Mr. Gaurav Singhal, Advocate. Hon'ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey J. Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput J. Judgment on Board Per, Rajani Dubey , Judge

01.05.2025

#1. Heard on admission.

#2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed an application under Section 20 (3) of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 before the learned Family Court along with an application for grant of interim maintenance, stating that the mother of respondent namely Smt. Paru is the legally wedded wife of the appellant and their marriage was solemnized on 18.04.1999 and out of their wedlock, the respondent was born on 16.11.2002. After three years of marriage, the 2 appellant ousted the mother of respondent, therefore, she is living in her parental house and she has no source of income so that she can look after her daughter and the respondent is pursuing B. Com course and she is unable to acquire proper food, cloths, study fees, stationary etc. and the mother of respondent is not able to bear the those expenses, therefore, she filed interim maintenance application before the Family Court.

#3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order dated 22.02.2025 (Annexure A/1) passed by learned Family Court is perverse, illegal, erroneous and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, it is liable to be quashed. Learned Family Court has failed to appreciate that though the marriage was solemnized between the appellant and mother of the respondent on 18.04.1999, but the respondent was not born from their wedlock. He further contends that Smt. Paru was having illicit relationship with one Dinesh Meshram, thus the appellant is not the biological father of respondent, as such the appellant raised this objection before the learned Family Court, but the learned Family Court did not appreciate this fact and thereby wrongly allowed the interim maintenance application of the respondent and directed the appellant to pay interim maintenance amount Rs. 2,000/- per month. He further contends that the learned Family Court did not consider objection of the appellant, however, it is evident that the respondent has filed an application for grant of maintenance amount after 22 years, therefore, she is not entitled to get any maintenance or interim maintenance, thus the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel prays that 3 notice be issued to the respondent, till then, effect and operation of the impugned order dated 22.02.2025 may be stayed.

#4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record.

#5. It is evident from the impugned order dated 22.02.2025 (Annexure A/1) that respondent filed an application against the appellant for maintenance under Section 20 (3) of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 and in this application, the respondent has also filed an application for interim maintenance and afterwards the appellant filed reply and objected the same that he is not the biological father of the respondent as the mother of the respondent had illicit relationship with another person, thus, liability of giving maintenance amount to the respondent does not fall upon him as he is not her biological father.

#6. Learned Family Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and hearing both the parties allowed the application for interim maintenance of the respondent and directed the appellant to pay Rs. 2,000 per month as interim maintenance till the final disposal of the case. The learned Family Court observed in the impugned order that marriage of the appellant was solemnized with the respondent’s mother on 18.04.1999 and mother of the respondent left the house of the appellant on 22.03.2002 and the respondent was born on

16.11.2002. Thus, the respondent was born within 09 months i.e.,

22.03.2002, when well within the departure of the respondent’s mother from the company of the appellant. Whether the respondent is the biological daughter of the appellant or not is subject to the adjudication and thereby allowed the interim maintenance application of the respondent by directing the appellant that he shall pay Rs. 2,000/- per 4 month as an interim maintenance to the respondent. The order passed by learned Family Court is based on documents filed by both the parties.

#7. Before passing the interim maintenance, a Court has to see prima facie relationship between the parties and earning capacity of both the parties, thus the learned Family Court rightly allowed the application for interim maintenance as filed by the respondent, based on the facts available on record, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with this impugned order.

#8. In consequence, this appeal is dismissed at motion stage itself without issuing notice to the other party, however it is directed that the learned Family Court shall decide the suit within ‘06 months’ from the date of this order and if the case will not be decided within the aforesaid stipulated period and also if the appellant is not found responsible for delay so caused, then the learned Family Court shall reconsider the interim maintenance application of the respondent. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge AMIT PATEL