The widowed daughter-in-law is entitled to maintenance from the estate of her deceased husband held by the respondents, as per the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.

JUDGMENT

N.B. Suryawanshi, J. - This appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 by the appellant-daughter-in-law challenges the judgment of the learned Family Court, Nagpur in Petition No. C-84/2008 thereby dismissing the petition filed by her for maintenance against the father-in-law and mother-in-law.

2. Facts, in brief, leading to this appeal are as under:

The appellant filed petition under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short 'the said Act') inter alia contending that she got married with the respondent's son Amol on 03.05.2007. After the marriage, she started residing at her matrimonial home. Amol met with an accident and expired on 21.02.2008. After the death of Amol, the appellant resided at her matrimonial home with the respondents, but gradually the respondents severed the relations with the appellant. The respondents received an amount of Rs.42,98,970/- towards the death claim of Amol. The appellant was entitled for half share in the said amount. Further contention is that the respondents also received other claims like Gratuity, Renewal Commission, Group Insurance etc. even in that amount, the appellant had half share. The appellant further averred that the respondents failed to return golden ornaments weighing 350 grams and the gift articles received by her in the marriage. On 16.04.2008, a meeting was called at the residence of the respondents with the help of the appellant's parents and other elderly persons, in which a mutual agreement was executed hurriedly. The appellant and her father could not understand the contents of the same. Copy of the agreement was also not supplied to the appellant. Though the appellant was called after 10 to 15 days from the date of that meeting for the ornaments, the respondents did not return the ornaments and on the contrary, lodged a false report against the appellant and her family members. The appellant claimed that she was unable to maintain herself and she had no source of income. The respondents drove her out of the matrimonial home. The estate of the deceased husband of the appellant was in the custody of the respondents, hence they are liable to maintain her. She was constrained to issue legal notice on 09.06.2008 calling upon the respondents to return all her claims and maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month. The respondents replied the notice by making false and frivolous allegations. It was further contended that in the reply-notice the respondents have alleged that one Tata Safari was given to the appellant. However, according to the appellant, the said vehicle was purchased in her name by her husband and she was entitled to take the same with her. The vehicle was purchased on loan and installment of the same was more than Rs. 10,000/- per month and as the appellant was unable to repay the loan installment, she was required to sell out the said vehicle to satisfy the loan. She further averred that the respondents have falsely accused that she has intentionally aborted her child. According to her, the abortion was an accident caused by stress and trauma. The appellant claimed that due to ill-treatment given to her, she was compelled to reside at her parental home. Her father was a retired Government Servant. The appellant needs money for her basic and other needs, hence she claimed maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month from February-2008.

3. The respondents appeared and resisted the appellant's claim by filing written statement, thereby denying all the allegations specifically. They contended that Amol was a L.I.C. Agent and he had eight policies which were drawn before the marriage by the first respondent. Since he was nominee to the said policies, he had received the claim after the death of Amol. The appellant has relinquished her claim in respect of all the policies in writing on 16.04.2008 in the mutual agreement. The second respondent being mother and nominee had received the Gratuity, Renewal Commission, Gr