Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Family Court allowing interim maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month in favour of the respondent No.2 Minor Kabya, presently aged about 2 years.

2. The impugned order has been passed on the application of the respondent under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act, 1956') on the ground that the respondent No.1's late husband Neeraj Baiswade jointly owned family property along with his father (Tikaram Baiswade) and elder brother (Dinesh Kumar Baiswade), appellants No. 1 and 2 herein, therefore, the appellants being in possession of the coparcenary or joint family property, they are liable to maintain the respondents out of the income of the said property.

3. Shri Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, would submit that a plain reading of Section 19 of the Act, 1956 would make it apparent that, prima facie, the liability of paying maintenance including interim maintenance is on the father-in-law and not on the brother-in -law, therefore, the trial Court should not have fastened the liability to make payment of interim maintena