CASE TITLE:
LAXMI & ANR VS SHYAM PRATAP & ANR
DATE OF ORDER:
28THAPRIL,2022
JUDGE(S):
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
PARTIES: PETITIONER:LAXMI & ANR
RESPONDENT: SHYAM PRATAP & ANR
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984; Section 19 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956
SUBJECT
A division bench of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna dismissed a petition filed by a widowed daughter-in-law and grand-daughter under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984, challenging an order dated May 3, 2019 deferring their claim for interim maintenance in a petition under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.
BRIEF FACTS
- On December 3, 2011, appellant No.1 married the son of the respondents, and on October 1, 2012, their daughter, appellant No.2, was born.
- Unfortunately, the husband died on December 14, 2013, and the wife and her daughter moved back to her parental home the following day.
- According to the respondents, she never returned nor maintained contact with them, but filed a petition for maintenance four years later, on February 23, 2018.
- In her application for interim maintenance, the appellant claimed that she was uneducated and had no means of supporting herself or her daughter. It was stated that she was completely reliant on her elderly, ailing parents for her day-to-day needs.
- She went on to say that respondent No. 1's father-in-law was an educated man who worked in the MTNL department and was obligated to look after them. However, it was claimed that the respondents had purposefully and intentionally neglected them by failing to pay for their upkeep.
- It was claimed that in addition to his regular salary, the father-in-law earned approximately 20,000 per month in rent, bringing his total monthly earnings to between $55,000 and $65,000.
- As a result, she sought interim maintenance in the amount of $30,000 per month until the main petition was resolved. The respondents, on the other hand, claimed that the appellants were not entitled to maintenance under Section 19 of the Act because the deceased had left no estate.
QUESTION RAISED
Whether a daughter-in-law can seek maintenance from her father-in-law if she inherited some of her husband's estate or not?
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT
- In the impugned order, the Family Court noted that the appellant had failed to disclose any estate left behind by her husband with the respondents from which the appellants could claim maintenance. As a result, the application was denied.
- The main point of contention before the High Court was that the widowed daughter-in-law and granddaughter were entitled to maintenance from the father-in-law even if the property was acquired by the parents-in-law or grandparents themselves.
- It was claimed that the facts were not viewed correctly and that the appellants' maintenance was wrongfully denied.
CONCLUSION
The Court determined that Section 22 of the Act provided for the maintenance of dependents of the deceased by the deceased's heirs, but only if they inherited the estate from the deceased. The Court stated that the impugned order of the learned Family Judge is without flaw. As a result, the appeal was dismissed.
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
