The court affirmed that a widowed daughter-in-law's right to maintenance is prioritized from her husband's estate, conditional on her inability to support herself.

JUDGMENT :

Rajani Dubey, J.

Challenge in this appeal is to the legality and validity of the order dated 6.12.2022 passed by Family Court, Korba in Civil Suit No.115A/2019 whereby partly allowing the application under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (in short “the Act of 1956”), the learned Family Court directed the appellant/defendant to pay a sum of Rs.2500/- per month as maintenance to the respondents/plaintiffs.

02. Facts, in brief, of the case are that respondent No.1 Smt. Chanda Yadav was married to Govind Prasad Yadav in the year 2006 as per Hindu rites and rituals and from their wedlock, respondents No. 2 & 3 were born. However, in the year 2014 Govind Prasad Yadav died in a motor vehicular accident. Since after his death, the appellant and other family members started ill-treating the respondents/plaintiffs, she started living separately in a rented house with her children. She filed an application u/s 19 of the Act of 1956 and claimed a sum of Rs.20,000/- pm maintenance from the respondent as he is working as peon in State Bank of India, Korba, drawing salary of Rs.40,000/- pm, has 6 decimal of land in Village-Junwani and Bhaisma whereas she has no source of income and has the responsibility of education etc. of the children also.

03. The respondent/defendant in his written statement denied all the adverse averments and stated that respondent/plaintiff No.1 herself left the matrimonial home; respondent No.2 Kaveri is living with him; respondent No.1 is working in a mall and getting Rs.15,000/- pm and also getting ration under the government schemes. Though the respondent tried to bring them back but she remained adamant. The appellant never made any allegation on her character, rather he advised her for remarriage but she refused. Earlier she filed an application under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before JMFC, Korba for interim maintenance which was rejected on 21.8.2019 and thereafter the present suit has been filed. He pleaded that he does not own any of the property of deceased husband of the respondent/plaintiff No.1; he is getting 60 years and would retire in 2020. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the suit.

04. Learned Family Court after framing issues and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record by the impugned order partly allowed the application and granted maintenance of Rs.2500/- to the respondents/plaintiffs making it clear that this order shall be effective till remarriage of respondent No.1 or any other order being passed otherwise. Hence this appeal.

05. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that respondent No.1 is a young, healthy lady of 30 years and can maintain herself by doing some work whereas the appellant is a pensioner having few days in this world and is already maintaining respondent No.2 Ku. Kaveri somehow on her low pension. He submits that respondent No.1 was in illicit relation with someone and refused to perform remarriage. While passing the impugned order learned Family Court did not apply the judicious mind and only out of emotions awarded maintenance to the respondents/plaintiffs which is not legally sustainable. Looking to the age of the appellant, the responsibility cast upon him and the conduct of respondent/plaintiff No.1, the learned Family Court should have dismissed the suit.

06. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supporting the impugned order submits that after due appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, learned Family Court rightly awarded maintenance in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs and as such, there is no need to interfere with this well reasoned order.

Reliance has been placed on the judgment dated 4.7.2022 passed by this Court in FAM No.200 of 2015 in the matter of Nand Kishore Lal Vs. Shrimati Chanchala Lal.

07. Heard le