Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: MAINTENANCE OF MOTHER in Jitendra Pal Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 4 August, 2022Matching Fragments
2. This case has a history. Initially, in the year 2012, an application for maintenance was filed by the mother of the private respondent, for herself and for the private respondent, seeking maintenance from the revisionist. It was registered as Family Suit No. 88 of 2012, Smt Saranjeet Kaur and another v. Jitendra Pal Singh ("the case"). The case was decided on 20.09.2014 and the revisionist was directed to pay total Rs. 8,000/- per month to the private respondent and her mother, as maintenance.
was agreed to be given by the revisionist as full and final settlement amount towards maintenance alimony to the mother of the private respondent and not to the private respondent.
11. Learned counsel for the private respondent has also placed reliance on the principle of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ganesh v. Sudhirkumar Shrivastava and others, 2020(20) SCC 787, Vikraman Nair and another v. Aishwarya and others, 2018 SCC OnLine Ker 3492 and Fateh Saharan v. Rohit Saharan, 2022 SCC Online Del 205.
16. A very small question needs interpretation that revolves around the interpretation of compromise entered into between the parties on 9.5.2015 in the petition. Admittedly, in the case, the maintenance was granted to the private respondent and her mother on 20.09.2014. The private respondent was to be paid Rs. 5,000/- per month maintenance. When arrears was not paid, the mother of the private respondent moved an application for recovery of arrears of maintenance, which is the basis of the recovery case.
...........................
..........................."
20. In the instant petition, alimony was agreed to be paid to the mother of the private respondent. It does not speak of any maintenance for the private respondent, though it makes provision for the custody of child.
21. The agreement dated 09.4.2015 cannot be read by inferring the intention of the parties. It has to be read as written in it and what is written in it with regard to maintenance has already been quoted above. The revisionist agreed to pay maintenance alimony to the mother of the private respondent. It is specific to the mother of the private respondent. It is not with regard to the private respondent.