The main legal point established in the judgment is the moral and legal obligation of a father-in-law to maintain a widowed daughter-in-law and grandchildren, as highlighted in Sections 19 and 22 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.

JUDGMENT

N.B. Suryawanshi, J. - This appeal is filed by the appellants under Section 19 and 22 of the of the Family Courts Act, 1984, challenging the judgment of the Family Court, Nagpur in Petition No. C-25/2012, by which the petition filed by the appellants against the respondent for maintenance was dismissed.

2. Facts leading to this appeal bereft of unnecessary details are as follows:

The appellant No.1 is the daughter in law and appellant Nos. 2 to 4 are the grand children of the respondent. They filed petition under Sections 19 and 22 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short Act of 1956), claiming maintenance from the respondent contending that the marriage of the first appellant with son of the respondent namely Parag was solemnized on 14/08/1989 under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. From the said wedlock the appellant Nos.2, 3 and 4 were born. The marriage of the first appellant with Parag was against the wishes of their family members. Cases and counter cases were filed by the first appellant and the respondent against each others. Parag-husband of the first appellant expired on 19/01/2000, leaving behind the appellants. After his death nobody was taking care of the appellants. After the death of Parag though the first appellant tried to reconcile with the respondent he refused to accept her as a daughter-in-law and the appellant Nos. 2 to 4 as his grand children. It was claimed that the respondent had sufficient financial resources however, he had neglected and refused to maintain the appellants. The appellants were constrained to go to the widowed mother of the first appellant, who was then serving as Nurse with Nagpur Municipal Corporation. She maintained the appellants in her meager income till she expired on 03/02/2007. The appellants claimed that they had no source of income and they were unable to maintain themselves. The first appellant being widowed daughter-in-law, second appellant being unmarried granddaughter and third and fourth appellants being minor grandsons of the respondent were entitled for maintenance from him. The details of proceedings pending between first appellant and the respondent were also given in the petition. It was further averred that the second appellant could not pursue her studies after 12th standard due to paucity of funds. The third and fourth appellants were studying in 8th standard at that time, in Bishop Cotton School, Sadar, Nagpur till 2010 and were not able to appear for exam as they could not pay exam fees and school fees. It was further averred that the appellants were living in a rented premises and were unable to pay rent at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per month. They were under a threat of being thrown out for non-payment of rent. The appellants claimed that the respondent was alone and was living a lavish lifestyle. He was having landed property. The late wife of respondent had disposed her agricultural land at Mouze Kalamana and from the sale proceeds, a four storied building was constructed which stood in the name of respondent. He sold two flats in the said building for Rs.40,00,000/-. Further averment was that the late husband of the first appellant had his share in the property situated at Plot No. 414, Hanuman Nagar, Nagpur as the same was a coparcenary property. Hence, the appellants had their share in the said property. It was contended that the respondent was getting pension of Rs. 15,000/-per month and was also getting interest of Rs.50,000/- per month on the sale proceeds of the ancestral property and the property of his late wife at Kalamana i.e. Survey No. 14/1 and 14/2 and of the two flats. The respondent had his own house and nobody was dependent on him, on these contentions, the appellants claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month for the first appellant and Rs. 3,000/- per month each for the appellant Nos. 2 to 4.

3. The respondent appeared and by filing written statement denied the claim of the appellants. He claimed that he di