Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Smt. Shefali Patra vs Smt. Purnima Dhara @ Gouri Rani Dhar & Anr on 21 November, 2017
1 11.2017 CRR 3637 of 2016 t. 34.
Smt. Shefali Patra vs. Smt. Purnima Dhara @ Gouri Rani Dhar & Anr.
Mr. M. Maity ..For the petitioner.
Mr. N. Patra ..For the opposite party.
Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties. The grievance of the present petitioner is such that the learned Sessions Judge without adhering to the principle of natural justice and without considering the evidence on record the learned Judicial Magistrate has come to the conclusion that the present petitioner is liable to maintain her mother.
According to the learned advocate for the petitioner the present opposite party has her husband and son who has grocery shop and has sufficient income. He further stated that her father has agricultural land and grocery shop which yields Rs. 10,000/- per month. He further contended that her brother is residing in joint mess with the private opposite party. He also earns Rs. 10,000/- per month. According to the petitioner without claiming any maintenance from them, the opposite party mother has prayed for maintenance from her.
The petitioner also ventilated her grievance that in the year 2003, a deed of gift was executed by the mother in favour of the present petitioner but thereafter the mother wanted to revoke the said deed of gift in connivance with her husband and brother by filing a title suit. However, that title suit was dismissed for default and subsequently there was a prayer for restoration of the same which 2 was also turned down by the learned trial court. Thereafter, the mother has decided to put pressure upon the present petitioner to suck some money from her.
She also ventilated that another application was filed before the SDO, Egra but without praying for any maintenance she has claimed the return of deed of gift which was not accepted by the SDO, Egra. There is no challenge against the order of the SDO, Egra. Disclosing all these episodes she has prayed for dismissal of the order passed by the leaned Additional Sessions Judge, Contai.
As against this, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party mother contended that law is well settled in view of the decision reported in AIR 1987 SC 1100 in connection with Dr. Mrs. Vijaya Manohar Arbat v. Kashirao Rajaram Sawai and another. In the said judgment Hon'ble Apex Court has come to a finding that it is the choice of the petitioner from whom he/she shall claim for maintenance. Therefore, whether the opposite party mother ought to have claimed maintenance for her husband or her son, is a matter of discretion to be exercised by the mother herself. In her petition, she has categorically disclosed that her husband is residing with some other woman and naturally she had right to claim maintenance separately. Mother in her application also ventilated that her son does not have sufficient income to maintain her. However, since the law is in favour of the opposite party mother, so this discussion here merely academic in nature.
Be that as it may, it is on record that mother had executed a deed of gift in favour of her daughter (petitioner). Therefore, the mother may have an 3 expectancy that she will be looked after by the daughter. This apart learned Sessions Judge has awarded a very paltry sum that is to Rs. 250/- per month which cannot be said as excessive.
Considering all these circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, does not call for any interference. Accordingly, this revisional application stands disposed with the above observation made above.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned court below for information. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be given to the parties, if applied for.
( Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J. )