Should a father pay for a 25-year-old adult daughters wedding expenses ??? should he be made to shell-out 2 million Indian rupees for his well qualified adult daughter ??
In this case a 25-year-old daughter who is studying for a company secretary course files an indignant person case against her own dad
She claims that she has no money and she has been forsaken by her father and her father is having illicit relations with another woman
The mother and daughter convince the court that the man is duty-bound to maintain this 25-year-old adult daughter and also pay for her marriage expenses !!
The mother who is an advocates has already filed 498a 406 cocktail with DV cases in the father
They ( mother and daughter ) convince honiurable the court to order 2 million Indian rupees ( rupees 20 lakhs ) to be paid by the man, as costs of the daughters marriage !!
One does not understand as to how women can claim equality on one side and then depend on fathers to pay Rs.2 million for their marriage
Well, I suppose all’s UNfair in this ( money milking ) love and war !!
Delhi District Court
Ms Chandra Mohini vs Shri Ram Chander Sharma on 16 December, 2015
Author: Virender Kumar Goyal
In the Court of Virender Kumar Goyal
Additional District Judge01 (East)
Karkardooma Court, Delhi
Suit No. 50/2008
Unique Case ID No.: 02402C0819002008
Date of Institution : 11.11.2008
Date of Reserving Judgment: 07.12.2015
Date on which judgment was pronounced: 16.12.2015
Ms Chandra Mohini
d/o Shri Ram Chander Sharma
r/o 360F, Pocket 2,Mayur Vihar,
PhaseI, Delhi 91. …..Plaintiff
Shri Ram Chander Sharma
s/o Shri Ram Phul Singh
r/o Tilla Mohalla, Silanigate,
Suit for recovery of marriage expenses and maintenance u/s
20 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act,1956.
Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff is daughter of the defendant and was born out of the wedlock of the defendant with Ms Vimla Sharma,mother of the plaintiff and that the marriage of the defendant and Smt Vimla Sharma had taken place on 11th May,1996 at Delhi and the plaintiff was born out of the cohabitation of the defendant and Smt Vimla Sharma on 17.6.1989, who is living under the custody of her mother Smt Vimla Sharma.
2. It is further averred that plaintiff has become major and doing Company Secretariat Course and has neither any source of income nor any moveable or immovable property and has filed the present suit u/o 33 of CPC.
3. It is further averred that defendant is the father of the plaintiff and brother of the plaintiff is also studying and has also no source of income and the plaintiff and her brother both are living on the mercy of their mother, who is a practicing advocate.
4. It is further averred that the defendant has neglected the plaintiff without any just and reasonable cause w.e.f. October2005 and the defendant has also neglected and deserted and not providing any maintenance to the mother and brother of the plaintiff and further averred that mother of the plaintiff has also filed a petition u/s 125 CrPC, claiming maintenance for the plaintiff and brother of the plaintiff and the maintenance has been accumulated to Rs. 1,85,000/ and further averred that mother of the plaintiff was harassed, maltreated and abused due to demand of dowry by the defendant and defendant also used to commit cruelty on the plaintiff and her brother and further averred that defendant has also been living with another lady namely Savita Sharma and is having illicit relations due to which, mother of the plaintiff had filed a complaint case in CAW Cell on which FIR u/s 498/406A of IPC has been registered with PS Mayur Vihar.It is further averred that mother of the plaintiff has also filed a complaint u/s 12 of the Domestic Violence Act against the defendant and his other family male members.
5. It is further averred that the defendant had initially filed a divorce petition at District Court, Jhajjar, however withdrawn the same after coming to know about the transfer petition filed by the mother of the plaintiff and filed a fresh petition on the same cause of action before the District Judge, Delhi.
6. It is further averred that the defendant is duty bound to provide maintenance, education, health care and other social expenses to the plaintiff, but the defendant has not provided any maintenance nor he has made any provision financially or otherwise.
7. It is further averred that defendant is a practicing advocate at Jhajjar and is a rich man and is having properties worth crores of rupees and is owner of following properties:
1. Flat no. B187, Pandav Nagar, Delhi 110 092.
2. Flat no. J75, Pandav Nagar, Delhi92.
3. Plot of 107 sq. yards one room and two shops constructed in the plot situated at Dsitt. Khahhar(Haryana) at Silani Gate, Jhajjar. The shops have been let out to Shri Jagdish and Vinod Kumar. Advance money of Rs. 3,20,000/ out of Rs. 32,50,000/ have been taken from Satpal and ors. of this property, by the defendant.
4. One shop in Bazar Silani Gate,Distt.Jhajjar(Haryana) tenant is a Goldsmith.
5. One house no. 393, Ward o. 9, Silani Gate Tilla Mohalla, Jhajjar. Tenant is Shri Banarsi Das s/o Shri Shambhu Dayal.
6. Agricultural land in Distt. Jhajjar.
7. One FDR of Rs.1,10,686/ in the name of Ram Mohan s/o defendant and three FDRs of Rs. 1,01,053/ each in the joint name of Smt Vimla Sharma and Ram Chander Sharma and Ram Mohan Sharma, totaling Rs. 3,03,159/in the bank of United Bank of India, SD Area, New Delhi.
8. Bank accounts in Oriental Bank of Commerce, Tehsil Jhajjar, State Bank of Patiala, patpar Ganj, Delhi 92 , Union Bank of India, karol Bagh, New Delhi, United Bank of CS: 50/2008 Chander Mohini vs Ram Chander 4 of 11 India, S D Area, New Delhi and in the State Bank of India a/c no. 680 of Chander Mohini @ Shipika.
9. Account in M/s K D Properties at Jhajjar(Haryana) account no. 010.
8. It is further averred that the defendant is also having shares debentures etc., valuing more than Rs. 20,00,000/ and also got other moveable assets like LIC policies worth lakhs of rupees which are about to mature and further averred that the defendant has also entered into an agreement to sell with one Shri Satpal s/o Shri Santa Singh of a house having one room and two shops for a sum of Rs. 32,50,000/ on 12.5.2008 and the defendant has also sold agricultural land in Distt Jhajjar for a sum of Rs. 14,30,000/ on 25.8.2008 and he is also planning to sell other properties.
9. It is further averred that mother of the plaintiff and other relatives have been requesting the defendant to make arrangement for the marriage of the plaintiff and is claiming Rs. 20 lakh, as defendant is a resourceful man and prayed for passing a decree of Rs. 20 lakh in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, for the marriage of the plaintiff with cost.
10.Defendant was served with the summons, but despite service he failed to appear and was proceeded exparte on 22.4.2009.
11. In order to prove her case, the plaintiff has examined herself as PW1 vide her affidavit Ex.PW1/A.
12.Plaintiff has also examined Smt Vimla Sharma as PW2, vide her affidavit Ex.PW2/1 on 10.2.2011, who has relied upon the certified copy of the sale deed Ex.PW2/A, legal notice dated 20.6.2007 Ex.PW2/B, mark C GPA dated 26.9.2001 Ex.PW2/D to Ex.PW2/J and Ex.PW2/K share certificate dated 7.5.1994, Ex.PW2/L&M ancestral property documents of the defendant, Ex.PW2/N certified copy of decree and judgment dated 20.2.1990 passed by the court of Shri D S Sheoran, Sub Judge, Ist Class, Jhajjar, District Rohtak, Ex.PW2/P objection application moved before the Sub Registrar, District Jhajjar, Mark A identity card of the defendant.
13.On 10.11.2014, ld.counsel for the plaintiff namely Ms Vibha Sharma had given the statement in the court that the plaintiff is no more desirous to examine any other witness and the evidence of the plaintiff may be closed. Accordingly, on the statement of the ld.counsel for the plaintiff, the evidence of the plaintiff was closed.
14. On 24.9.2012, ld.counsel for the plaintiff has filed court fees of Rs. 12,110/ and on 9.11.2012, the ld.counsel for the plaintiff has given the statement that since the plaintiff has filed the court fees, so the plaintiff is no more desirous to sue the defendant, being indigent person. Accordingly, on the statement of the ld.counsel for the plaintiff, the relief sought by the plaintiff to sue the defendant as indigent person was dismissed as withdrawn.
15.On 5.1.2015, ld.counsel for the plaintiff has filed an application u/s 151 CPC for leading additional evidence alongwith list of witnesses. However, on 16.02.2015, ld.counsel has submitted that she does not want to examine any witness to prove the documents, but she wants to examine the plaintiff further in respect of ID proofs, educational qualification of children etc.
16.On 26.11.2015, PW2 was recalled for further examination, who has relied upon photocopy of election identity card of the plaintiff Ex.PW2/Q(OSR), photocopy of ration card, which stands in the name of Ram Chander mark A, photocopy of identity card of the plaintiff issued by the Institute ofo Company Secretaries of India Ex.PW2/R(OSR),photocopy of letter dated 26.11.2010 written to the petitioner by the Director of the Institute of Company Secretaries of India Ex.PW2/T(OSR), photocopy of mark sheet of the petitioner of Senior School Certificate Examination, 2006 issued by CBSE Ex.PW2/U(OSR), photocopy of mark sheet of the petitioner of Secondary School Examination, 2004 issued by CBSE Ex.PW2/V(OSR), Photocopy of ALL India Secondary School Examination, 2004 of the petitioner issued by CBSE Ex.PW2/W(OSR), Photocopy of Delhi Senior School Certificate Examination, 2006 of the petitioner issued by the CBSE Ex.PW2/X(OSR), photocopy of Statement of Marks of B.A. (Pass) of the petitioner issued by University of Delhi Ex.PW2/Y(OSR), photocopy of Statement of Marks of M.A. (English) of the petitioner issued by Karnataka University Ex.PW2/Z(OSR), details of expenses incurred upon the plaintiff by her mark B and evidence of the plaintiff was closed.
17. I have heard the counsel for the plaintiff and perused the record.
18.The plaintiff is the daughter of the defendant. She is residing with her mother. Both husband and wife are residing separately since long. The documents have been placed on record from Ex. PW2/Q to Ex.PW2/X. The plaintiff was aged about 18 years, as on 1.1.2008. So, at present, she is aged about 25 years of age. So, she is at marriageable age.
19.According to Section 20 of The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act,1956, a Hindu is bound, during his lifetime, to maintain his legitimate or illegitimate children and according to Section 20(3) of The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act,1956: The obligation of a person to maintain his daughter who is unmarried extends in so far as the unmarried daughter, is unable to maintain herself out of her own earnings or other property.
20.The plaintiff is being maintained by her mother. According to evidence brought on record and proved, the defendant have numerous movable and immovable properties and is earning handsome being advocate. Plaintiff is seeking Rs. 20 lakhs for her marriage from the defendant/father. She has proved the fact of the plaint, by appearing as PW1 and her testimony remained unrebutted and unchallenged. Similarly, her mother has examined herself as PW2 and she has also proved certain documents regarding the educational status of the plaintiff.
21. According to Section 3 of The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act,1956:
3. Definitions: In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:
(b) maintenance” includes
(i) in all cases, provision for food, clothing, residence, education and medical attendance and treatment;
(ii) in the case of an unmarried daughter, also the reasonable, expenses of and incident to her marriage;
22.In view of above, in case of unmarried daughter, the defendant is also liable to pay maintenance of an unmarried daughter i.e. reasonable expenses of her marriage. The defendant is financially strong and according to provisions of The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, he is bound to pay a reasonable expenses to the plaintiff/daughter.
23.Ld.counsel for the plaintiff has contended that the ld. MM has also granted Rs. 5000/ as maintenance and certified copy of the proceedings have been filed, but still the said maintenance has also not been paid from 2011 till today. Considering the above facts and circumstances, the plaintiff has been able to prove the fact of the plaint, by leading evidence, which is reliable. The expenses of the marriage claimed by the plaintiff are not on higher side, but are reasonable, considering the status of the mother of the plaintiff, who is an advocate and also living in a Metropolitan city like Delhi.
24.Accordingly, the suit stands allowed and the same is decreed for a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs, as maintenance in favour of the plaintiff, payable by the defendant, on account of the marriage of the plaintiff, being his daughter. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the open Court on : 16.12.2015
( Virender Kumar Goyal)
Additional District Judge01 (East), Karkardooma Court,Delhi.