Hardev Singh v. Jaspal Singh & ORS

YOGESH SHARMA 2018.12.03 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-5784-2016 (O&M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH RSA-5784-2016 (O&M) Date of decision : 26.11.2018 Hardev Singh ... Appellant

Versus

Jaspal Singh and others ... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

Present:

Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate for the appellant.

**** AMIT RAWAL, J.

CM-15174-C-2016 For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed and the delay of 301 days in filing the appeal is condoned. RSA-5784-2016 The appellant-defendant No.1, father of plaintiff No.2, has not been able to defend the suit awarding maintenance @ `3,000/- per month till the attaining of age of majority.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the lower Appellate Court being the last Court of fact and law was enjoined upon an obligation to examine each and every document, but the findings are opposite to the one given by the trial Court. Ex.D-2, divorce deed, signed by Hardev Singh established that it was the wife, who had to maintain the minor child.

I am afraid the aforementioned argument is not sustainable as dehors of the fact that plaintiff No.1-wife had remarried, but divorce deed

YOGESH SHARMA 2018.12.03 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-5784-2016 (O&M) (Ex.D-2) was not admissible in evidence as it was not a decree of divorce through the competent Court of law. It is bounden duty of the father to maintain the minor child till he attained the age of majority. A sum of `3,000/-, holding a substantial property as per the jamabandi Ex.P-1, cannot be said to be onerous liability.

The present regular second appeal is dismissed. 26.11.2018 Yogesh Sharma ( AMIT RAWAL ) JUDGE  Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/ No  Whether Reportable Yes/ No