Suresh Kumar v. Sanjana & Ors.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. I. S. Pabla, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Defendant no.1 – Suresh Kumar has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated

08.10.2011 (Annexure P-3), passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kurukshetra, thereby granting interim maintenance to respondents no.1 and 2/plaintiffs @ Rs.2,000/- per month each from the date of filing of application, besides Rs.1,500/- as litigation expenses. Respondent no.1 is widowed daughter-in-law of the petitioner, whereas respondent no.2 is grand-daughter of petitioner. They filed suit against petitioner and proforma respondents no.3 to 5 seeking declaration, C. R. No. 7230 of 2011 2 partition, maintenance and permanent injunction. Ashwani Kumar, who was husband of respondent no.1 and father of minor respondent no.2, has since died. He was son of petitioner Suresh Kumar. Respondents no.1 and 2/plaintiffs alleged that they have no source of income, whereas defendant no.1-petitioner holds ancestral joint Hindu family property and has sufficient means to maintain the plaintiffs.

Defendants no.1 and 2 contested the application for interim maintenance and alleged that plaintiff no.1 was facing trial for abetement of suicide of her husband under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC), and therefore, she stands disinherited and disqualified by the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (in short – the Act), coming within the definition of murderer. It was also alleged that plaintiff no.1 has sufficient means to maintain herself. Defendant no.3 also contested the suit and the application. Learned trial court, vide impugned order (Annexure P-3), granted interim maintenance to the plaintiffs. Defendant no.1 has filed the instant revision petition to challenge the same. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Counsel for the petitioner did not dispute the grant of interim maintenance to respondent no.2, although alleged that separate petition has been filed for taking custody of minor respondent no.2.

C. R. No. 7230 of 2011 3 Counsel for the petitioner contended that respondent no.1, having abetted commission of suicide by her husband, is not entitled to interim maintenance from the petitioner in view of Section 25 of the Act. The contention is completely misplaced, frivolous and meritless. Section 25 of the Act disinherits the murderer from inheriting the property of the person murdered or any other property in furtherance of succession. In the instant case, however, it is not even the case of the petitioner that respondent no.1 had murdered her husband. On the contrary, the allegation against respondent no.1 was that she abetted commission of suicide by her husband. Consequently, Section 25 of the Act is, by no stretch, applicable to disinherit respondent no.1. Secondly, question of inheritance is not an issue in this revision petition. On the contrary, the question of interim maintenance is being adjudicated upon.

Section 25 of the Act has no applicability to this issue. Thirdly, counsel for the petitioner conceded that respondent no.1 has since been acquitted by the trial court in the aforesaid case under Section 306 IPC, although appeal filed by the petitioner against said acquittal is pending consideration in this Court. In view of acquittal of respondent no.1 in the aforesaid case also, the aforesaid contention has to be rejected. Counsel for the petitioner also contended that respondent no.1 has sufficient means to maintain herself. However, there is not even an iota of material on record to substantiate this contention. On the other hand, C. R. No. 7230 of 2011 4 plaintiffs placed material on record in the trial court to prima facie depict that the petitioner has ancestral property in his hands. In view of the aforesaid, grant of interim maintenance to respondents no.1 and 2 by the trial court vide impugned order cannot be said to be suffering from any infirmity, much less perversity or illegality or jurisdictional error so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdictional under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

The impugned order is not vitiated warranting interference at the hands of the petitioner. It may be clarified that this order shall have no bearing on revision petition, said to have been filed by respondents no.1 and 2, for enhancement of the interim maintenance. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed in limine. February 03, 2012 monika ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE