IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is that a widowed daughter-in-law is entitled to maintenance from her father-in-law under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, if she is unable to maintain herself.

JUDGMENT

Suresh Kumar Kait, J. - Present appeal has been filed by the appellant under the provisions of Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1956 seeking setting aside of judgment and order dated 24.12.2019 passed in HMA No.06/2017 by the learned Family Court, whereby he has been directed to pay interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.3,000/- per month to the respondent, from the date of filing of the petition till 30.11.2019 and thereafter, to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/-per month. In addition, appellant has also been directed to bear school and other educational expenses of the children of his deceased son and respondent (daughter-in-law) and pay water and electricity expenses in respect of the premises under occupation of the respondent.

2. The appellant's son Sh.Satish Kumar got married to respondent as per Hindu Rites Customs and Ceremonies on 01.12.2012 and two children were born out of the said wedlock. The son of the appellant was employed in Delhi Home Guard when he expired on 15.07.2009. Pursuant to the death of appellant's son, respondent i.e. his daughter-in-law filed a petition under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 seeking a decree against the appellant to pay maintenance and also to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of her alleged unlawful and illegal dispossession from the property bearing No.B-139, Harijan Basti, Kondli, Delhi.

3. The respondent claimed before the learned Family Court that she had no source of income to maintain herself and her istridhan articles were in possession of the appellant and that he had refused to maintain her in any manner even though he has substantial resources. The respondent averred before the learned Family Court that appellant is a permanent employee of East Delhi Municipal Corporation (EDMC) on the post of Beldar/ Chowkidar and is the owner of three following properties:-

(i) Built up property bearing no.B-137, Harijan Basti, Kondli, Delhi-110096 of admeasuring 60 square yards.

(ii) Built up property bearing no.B-139, Harijan Basti, Kondli, Delhi-110096 of admeasuring 400 square yards.

(iii) Built up property bearing no.B-140, Harijan Basti, Kondli, Delhi-110096 of admeasuring 100 square yards.

4. The respondent alleged that after demise of her husband, the appellant and his family members shifted her temporarily from property B-139, Harijan Basti, Kondli to property B-140, Harijan Basti, Kondli on the pretext of construction, renovation and expansion on the assurance that she would be shifted back to the property B-139, Harijan Basti, Kondli where she originally lived with her husband and family. The respondent further claimed before the learned Family Court that the house where she was made to shift i.e. B-140, Harijan Basti, Kondli, was admeasuring 6' x 8' without any kitchen and permanent bathroom. She also pleaded that during lifetime of her husband, property B-139, Harijan Basti had three shops on the ground floor, however, pursuant to construction/renovation/expansion, the ground floor has been converted into two shops and the remaining area is used as a passage for the first floor and upper floors of the property, thereby she has been dispossessed from the shop which earlier existed in property B-139, Harijan Basti, Kondli in the possession of her late husband. The respondent stated that even during the pendency of the said petition, renovation work was on and has been deliberately lingered on to deprive her of possession thereof.

5. The respondent claimed before the learned Family Court that she had no source of income whereas appellant i.e. her father-in-law was in receipt of Rs.55,000/- approximately per month through hawkers and pheriwalas who stood in front of their property and besides rental of Rs.10,000 p.m. each from two rooms was also going to his pocket.

6. The stand of the appellant before the learned Family Court was that out of three properties, two were in the name of his wife and one was owned by him. He alleged that property No.B-1