Suit for maintenance of minors

Grandfather/plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of rupees one crore on account of mental torture suffered by him in proceedings of a suit for maintenance filed by his grandson

Trial Court granted damages to the extent of Rs.10,000

Validity

Dissection of record revealed that the plaintiff himself had filed an application for custody of the minor being a grandfather by including the defendant as party

Plaintiff grandfather, was blowing hot and cold at the same time as on the one hand he had shown his anxiety to take custody of the minor but on the other hand when he was impleaded as party just for getting information qua whereabouts of his real son he started raising hue and cry that on account of receipt of notice/summons of Court, his personality was damaged in social set-up

When a man had already instituted more than one litigation against a lady and her father then he had no right to claim that his respect had been damaged on account of filing a suit for maintenance

Partial decree granted by the Trial Court in favour of the plaintiff was set aside and the appeal filed by defendant was allowed, in circumstances.

Court is to determine the income of the father for which recourse in terms of subsection (4) of S.17-A of Family Courts Act, 1964 can be adopted which is meant to facilitate the court to determine the financial position of the father.

Family Court, before determination of the quantum of maintenance, is under obligation to determine the financial capability of the father vis-à-vis the amount claimed in that respect

Test provided for the purpose is that there should be some tangible, concrete and confidence inspiring material preferably in the shape of documents and thereafter proper maintenance is to be fixed.

Petitioner assailed findings of courts below to the extent of maintenance allowance fixed at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month each for three minors

Validity

Statement of respondent/wife transpired that it was a love marriage; that the petitioner was studying at that time, while after the marriage, they had lived in the parental house of respondent, which was an official accommodation; that the respondent was serving in BPS-11 as a government servant; that the petitioner had been contributing in terms of maintenance and payment of school fee of the children at par with his financial capability and that the respondent in her statement had not given the details or even remote hint whereby the financial status of the petitioner could be ascertained while on the other hand a suggestion was also put to her that the petitioner was jobless

When the legitimate source of income of the petitioner was shrouded in mystery and it was established that the respondent was a working lady and had been contributing towards maintenance parallel to the petitioner, the awarded maintenance appeared to be excessive

Impugned judgments and decrees were set aside and the case was remanded for decision afresh, in circumstances.

Family Court allowed maintenance to minors and Executing Court, in execution of the decree, attached property of petitioner, grandfather of the minors

Both Executing Court and revisional court dismissed objection petition moved by the petitioner against said attachment

Validity

Petitioner, father of judgment-debtor, was neither party in the suit, nor was the decree passed against him, and the execution petition was filed against the judgment debtor

Petitioner had never stood surety or guarantor on behalf of judgment-debtor, nor had he given any undertaking that, in case the judgment-debtor did not pay the decretal amount, he would pay the same

Decree in question, therefore, could not be executed against the petitioner

Executing Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by executing the decree against petitioner, who was paternal grandfather of minors

High Court set aside impugned orders

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.