IMPORTANT POINT
A widowed daughter-in-law is entitled to maintenance from her father-in-law under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, provided she proves the unavailability of other income sources.

JUDGMENT :

RAJANI DUBEY, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 28.10.2022 passed by the Family Court, Mahasamund, District-Mahasamund (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 05/2022 whereby the application for grant of maintenance under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 so far as it relates to respondents No. 1 & 2 the wife and the child of late Amit Sahu has been allowed granting the maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent No. 1/wife and Rs.500/- per month to respondent No. 2/child.

2. Before learned trial Court, it is an admitted fact that respondents No. 1 and 2 are wife and child of late Amit Sahu who is son of the appellant. Amit Sahu died on 02.01.2022. During his lifetime, he paid maintenance of Rs.1500/- to his wife/respondent No. 1 herein and Rs. 1000/- to child/respondent No. 2 herein. It is also an admitted fact before the learned trial Court that non-applicant/appellant herein Janakram Sahu got retired from Electricity department as Lineman/ Inspector in the year 2013 and his ancestral land is located in joint account in Village-Jhalkhamhariya/Boriyajhar.

3. Applicants No. 1 & 2/respondents herein filed application under Section 19(1 & 2) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 against non-applicant/appellant herein on this ground that during lifetime of late Amit Sahu, the maintenance amount of Rs. 5,000/- was left to be paid and after his death, no maintenance amount of any kind is being paid to the respondents by the appellant herein. The appellant is getting a pension of approximately Rs. 40,000/- per month after retiring from the post of officer in the Electricity Department. Apart from this, the appellant has agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 509 Rakba 0.16 hectares in village Jhalkhamhariya, land bearing Khasra No. 400 Rakba 0.67 hectares in village Parswani, & land bearing Khasra No. 198 Rakba 0.41 hectares in village Boriyajhar & all lands are irrigated double cropped. Apart from the above land, appellant has a big house in village Tumgaon from which he gets a sum of Rs 10,000/- per month as a rent. After retirement, the appellant did some contract work for building houses and from which he used to earn Rs.10,000/- - 15,000/- per month. The appellant used to earn Rs. 5,00,000/- per crop annually from all agricultural land and approximately Rs. 50,000/- per month from all income sources. She further pleaded that she is physically weak and is not capable to do any kind of work & she has no any source of income to maintain herself and her child. Respondent No. 2-Ku. Tokeshwari Sahu is studying in Class 3rd. Appellant is financially capable. Therefore, the appellant may be directed to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- - 10,000/- i.e. total Rs. 20,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondents.

4. In his reply, non-applicant/appellant herein denying all the allegations stated that after coming under the influence of her parents, respondent No. 1 deserted her husband late Amit Sahu and started residing in Raipur and works in clothes shop located in Golbazar, Raipur. The appellant herein is retired, old and disabled person and it is very hard for him to maintain himself and his dependent families with the small amount of pension. If respondent No. 2 wants to live with him then he is ready to provide her better education.

5. Learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence partly allowed the application of the applicants/ respondents herein and vide impugned order dated 28.10.2022 directed the non-applicant/appellant herein to pay a sum of Rs.1,500/- per month to applicant No. 1/respondent No. 1 and Rs. 500/- per month to applicant No. 2/respondent No. 2.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order is illegal, erroneous and contrary to law of facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that respondent No. 1 is residing separately without sufficient reasons and therefore, she is not entit