Prakash Gupta, J. - (1.) THE instant Civil Misc. Appeal is preferred against the Order dated 23/01/2008 passed by Family Court, Ajmer. Whereby the learned Family Court partly decreed the suit as follows: - -
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the appellants filed a suit against the respondent -defendant wherein it was stated that appellant No. 1 -plaintiff No. 1 was married to the respondent on 12/04/1976 at Ajmer according to Hindu rites and rituals. Out of their wedlock, four children were born, out of which plaintiff No. 2 and plaintiff No. 3 are alive who are residing with appellant No. 1. Appellant No. 1 and respondents are living separately since long time. Appellant No. 1 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in which a compromise was arrived at between the parties wherein the respondent agreed to pay Rs. 500/ - per month to the appellant No. 1 and Rs. 250/ - to plaintiff No. 2 and 3 respectively as maintenance. It is further stated that plaintiff No. 1 has no source of income whereas respondent No. 1 is doing business in the name of Manwani Traders. He also has ancestral property and has four godowns, he is an Income Tax payer also and his monthly income is Rs. 1,00,000/ -. Therefore, plaintiff No. 1 is entitled to 5,000/ - per month and plaintiff No. 2 and 3 are entitled to maintenance amount to the tune of Rs. 3,000/ - per month respectively. Rs. 5,00,000/ - were demanded for the marriage of plaintiff No. 2. The respondent -defendant filed a reply wherein the factum of the marriage was admitted and also admitted that out of the wedlock plaintiff No. 2 and 3 were born. It is submitted that appellant No. 1 works as a tailor wherefrom she is earning Rs. 250 per day. So far as ancestral property is concerned, the respondent -defendant and his other brothers and sisters have equal shares in the same. It is also submitted that from the business of Manwani Traders, the defendant is earning only Rs. 3,000/ - per month and he is not in a position to pay more than Rs. 1,000/ - as maintenance. He has no godowns in his possession and also has no other property as stated in the plaint.
(3.) ON the basis of the pleadings, the learned Family Court framed the following issues: - - "1. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to Rs. 11,000/ - per month as maintenance. 2. Whether plaintiff No. 2, Kanta, defendant's daughter, is entitled to Rs. 5,00,000/ - for her marriage expenditure. 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be decreed, if yes, in what manner. 4. Relief.";