The main legal point established in the judgment is that the daughter-in-law's suit disclosed a cause of action against the father-in-law, and the minor children had a right to claim maintenance against their grandfather and coparcenary property.

1. The Appellant daughter-in-law has filed the present appeal against the order dated 16th November, 2004 passed in Suit No. 1225 of 2003 whereby the learned Single Judge while deciding a preliminary issue has held that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action against the father-in-law (defendant No. 2/respondent No. 1 herein) and has deleted him from the array of parties.

2. Learned Single Judge while reaching the above conclusion has held that by virtue of Sections 18 and 19 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be referred as the said Act), a daughter-in-law during the life time of her husband had no right to seek maintenance from her father-in-law and further in view of Section 4 of the said Act, the Old Customary Law which entitled a wife to seek maintenance from coparcenary property was no longer available. The learned Single Judge concluded that the question of defendant No. 2/respondent No. 1 herein being karta or his obligation to perform duties as karta did not arise in the present case and he was neither a proper nor a necessary party and further that he had been improperly joined.

3. At the outset, Mr. Y.P. Narula, learned senior counsel for the Appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the present suit was a composite suit for maintenance and residence not only on behalf of the wife but also on behalf of the

minor children. In this context, he referred to the cause title of the suit itself which stated SUIT FOR MAINTENANCE AND SEPARATE RESIDENCE UNDER SECTION 9 CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE READ WITH SECTION 18 AND 20 OF THE HINDU ADOPTION and MAINTENANCE ACT, 1956 and FOR PERMANENT AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION.

4. Mr. Narula submitted that the minor children acquire an independent right of ownership by birth in Hindu co-joint parcenary property and until partition, each member has co-ownership over the said property and a co-parcener can seek maintenance from such property. In this context, he relied upon the observations of the Apex Court in Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Alladi Kuppuswamy reported at (1977) 3 SCC 385 wherein it has been held as under:- Thus analyzing the ratio of the aforesaid case regarding the incidents of a Hindu coparcenary it would appear that a Hindu coparcenary has six essential characteristics, namely, (1) that the lineal male descendants up to the third generation acquire an independent right of ownership by birth and not as representing their ancestors; (2) that the members of the coparcenary have the right to work out their rights by demanding partition; (3) that until partition, each member has got ownership extending over the entire property conjointly with the rest and so long as no partition takes place, it is difficult for any coparcener to predicate the share which he might receive; (4) that as a result of such co-ownership the possession and enjoyment of the property is common; (5) that there can be no alienation of the property without the concurrence of the other coparceners unless it be for legal necessity; and (6) that the interest of a deceased member lapses on his death and merges in the coparcenary property.

5. He submitted that in the impugned judgment there was no discussion with regard to the minor childrens right to claim maintenance against their grandfather as well as coparcenary property in the control of defendant No.2/respondent No.1 as karta.

6. Mr. Narula submitted that in view of the averments in the plaint it could not be concluded without a trial that the plaint did not disclose a cause of action against defendant No.2 / respondent No.1 herein. In this context learned Senior Counsel for Appellant referred to the following averments in the plaint which are being reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:- 4. The Plaintiffs further submit that the Defendant No. 2 is the head of the Narang Joint Hindu family, an extremely well known wealthy family of Delhi. The Narang Family owns various busi