RAJKUMARI AND 2 OTHERS Vs. GOTHA CHAKRAVARTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal under section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 at the instance of appellants is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.06.2016 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Katni in G.W. No.15/2014.

(2.) Undisputed and admitted facts are that appellant No.1 is the widow of Late Balaprasad, son of defendant and appellants No.2 and 3 are her children and at present residing with her father at village Khirhani, Katni. It is also undisputed that land bearing survey No.165/2, area 0.24 hectares in village Simra and survey No.152/2 area 0.126 hectares in village Kudrai is recorded in the joint name of appellants, Balram and defendant.

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that plaintiffs/appellants filed a petition under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the respondent/father-in-law, seeking maintenance to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- for herself and her two minor children. It was pleaded that her late husband Balaprasad had purchased the land, survey No. 165/2 in village Simra and survey No. 152/2 in village Kudrai during his life time, in the joint name of Balaprasad and appellant No.1 from his own source. Defendant separated his son Balaprasad but did not give him any share in the joint family properties. After the death of Balaprasad, the defendant alongwith her mother-inlaw, brother-in-law, threw her out of the house and took forcible possession of the movable and immovable properties of the appellants and in collusion with the revenue authorities, got his name jointly recorded in the said land. It was pleaded that despite having property in their names, they lived as destitutes and for their safety, were forced to live with the father of appellant No.1. Appellant No.1 has pleaded that under the facts and circumstances, she is unable to maintain herself and her two minor children. She has further pleaded that a report to this effect was lodged by her in police Station, Rithee on 11.07.2011 and 17.07.2001 and despite police mediation and investigation, her household items, jewelery, etc., were not returned back by her father-inlaw, hence a registered notice was also sent to him, but defendant is an influential and well off person and has threatened to kill her. The plaintiff to prove her case has examined 5 witnesses and produced documentary evidence Ex. P-1 to P-5.