1975 (2) TMI 127 - HC - Indian Laws

Court orders Defendant to deposit funds for marriage expenses, joint management with proper accounts. Each party bears own costs.

The Court directed Defendant No. 1 to deposit Rs. 25,000 with the Registrar for Defendant No. 4's marriage expenses, to be managed jointly by the parties ... - Issues Involved:1. Marriage expenses of Defendant No. 4.2. Management of the alleged Joint Hindu Family Property.3. Validity of the second marriage of Defendant No. 1.4. Prima facie existence of Joint Hindu Family Property.5. Interim relief during the pendency of a partition suit.6. Inherent powers of the Court under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Marriage Expenses of Defendant No. 4:The judgment addresses two applications concerning the marriage expenses of Defendant No. 4. The Plaintiffs and Defendant No. 4 requested the Court to direct Defendant No. 1 to set aside Rs. 75,000 or another appropriate amount for these expenses. The Court noted that the Joint Hindu Family Property was valued over Rs. 5,00,000 and generated a monthly income of at least Rs. 5,000, making Defendant No. 1 capable of meeting the marriage expenses.2. Management of the Alleged Joint Hindu Family Property:The Court acknowledged the pending litigations concerning the management of the Joint Hindu Family Property, which is the subject matter of the suit. It was noted that Defendant No. 1, as the Karta and manager, was responsible for managing this property.3. Validity of the Second Marriage of Defendant No. 1:The validity of Defendant No. 1's marriage to Defendant No. 5 was contested by the Plaintiffs. This issue was framed in the suit, questioning whether Defendant No. 5 was the legally wedded wife of Defendant No. 1 and whether her sons were his legitimate children.4. Prima Facie Existence of Joint Hindu Family Property:The Court examined whether there was a prima facie case to hold that there was Joint Hindu Family Property. The Plaintiffs claimed the property was joint family property, while Defendant No. 1 argued it was his self-acquired property. The Court noted that the income-tax assessment records indicated the property was treated as Joint Hindu Family Property, creating a prima facie case for its existence.5. Interim Relief During the Pendency of a Partition Suit:The Court deliberated on whether an interim order for marriage expenses could be issued during a partition suit. It was noted that an unmarried daughter is entitled to maintenance and marriage expenses from the Joint Hindu Family Property. The Court referenced judgments supporting the issuance of interim relief in maintenance suits and concluded that a similar order could be passed in a partition suit.6. Inherent Powers of the Court under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure:The Court considered whether it could exercise its inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to grant the requested interim relief. It was noted that the Supreme Court had affirmed the Court's inherent power to make necessary orders for the ends of justice. The Court concluded that it could exercise these powers to direct Defendant No. 1 to provide Rs. 25,000 for Defendant No. 4's marriage expenses, ensuring the order was properly executed and accounted for.Conclusion:The Court directed Defendant No. 1 to deposit Rs. 25,000 with the Registrar of the Court for Defendant No. 4's marriage expenses. This amount was to be managed by the Plaintiffs and Defendants 2 to 4, with proper accounts maintained and security furnished for restitution. The applications were allowed, with each party bearing its own costs.