AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
After having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the material placed on record, we consider it proper to ignore the delay of 18 days as pointed out by the Office in filing this appeal. However, after having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the material placed on record, we are not persuaded to consider interference in this appeal particularly when, by way of impugned judgment and decree dated 03.10.2013, the Family Court, Hanumangarh has made a provision only in the sum of Rs. 1200/- per month for maintenance of the respondent, who is grand-daughter of the present appellant, and whose father, son of the present appellant, has admittedly expired.
Though certain submissions are sought to be made as regards the matrimonial status of the mother of the plaintiff but, we do not find any reason to enter into any such aspect in the present proceedings. Suffice it to observe for the present purpose that a provision of maintenance only in the sum of Rs. 1200/- per month, to say the very least, is rather on the lower side and there is no warrant for considering its downward revision or altogether withdrawal at the instance of the appellant, grand-father of the child.
The appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed summarily.