A widowed daughter-in-law’s entitlement to maintenance from her father-in-law is contingent on the existence of inherited estate from her deceased husband, which must be established by the claimant.

JUDGMENT

Neena Bansal Krishna, J. (Oral)

CM APPL. 36737/2019 (Delay of 44 days in filing appeal)

1. By this application, the appellant seeks condonation of 44 days' delay in filing the appeal.

2. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 44 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

3. Application is disposed of.

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 217/2019

4. The appellants, who are the widowed daughter-in-law and grand-daughter of the respondents, have filed the petition under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984 against the order dated 3rd May, 2019 deferring their claim for interim maintenance in a petition under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as The Act, 1956).

5. The facts in brief are that appellant no.1 Smt. Laxmi got married to Sh. Prakash son of the respondents on 3rd December, 2011 according to Hindu Customs and Rites and one daughter appellant No.2 was born from their wed lock on 1st October, 2012. Unfortunately, Sh. Prakash expired on 14th December, 2013 and since the next day, appellant No.1 along with her daughter shifted to her parental home. According to the respondents, she neither returned nor did she remain in contact with the respondents, but filed a petition for maintenance after four years i.e. on 23rd February, 2018.

6. The appellant in her application for interim maintenance had asserted that she was not well educated and had no source of income to maintain herself or the daughter. She is totally dependent upon her old age ailing parents for her day to day needs. The respondent No.1/father-in-law is an educated person employed in MTNL department and is duty bound to take care of the daughter-in-law and the grand-daughter. However, the respondents have intentionally and deliberately neglected them by not paying even a penny towards their maintenance. It was claimed that not only is respondent No.1 getting his regular salary but is also earning about Rs.20,000/- per month from rent and his total monthly earnings are about Rs.55000/- to Rs.65000/-. Accordingly, she claimed interim maintenance in the sum of Rs.30,000/- per month till the disposal of the main petition.

7. The respondents on the other hand, had asserted that the appellants are not entitled to any maintenance under Section 19 of the Act since there was no estate left behind by the deceased. The respondent No.1 neither has any coparcenary property nor any income there from and the petitioners are not entitled to maintenance under the Act. It was claimed that as per the knowledge of the respondents, appellant No.1 was doing a private job in a factory in Gandhi Nagar and earning about Rs.9,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per month. She also has a share in her ancestral property in a village.

8. Ld. Principal Judge, Family Court in the impugned order, observed that the appellant had failed to disclose about any estate left behind by her husband with the respondents from which the appellants could claim maintenance. The application was accordingly dismissed. Aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.

9. The main ground of challenge is that the widowed daughter-in-law and grand-daughter are entitled to claim maintenance from the father-in-law even if the property is self acquired by the parents-in-law/grand-parents. It is claimed that the facts have not been appreciated in the right perspective and the maintenance has been wrongly denied to the appellants.

10. Learned counsel on behalf of the appellants stated that the appellant No.1 has undergone surgery and is not capable of working and taking care of herself. She was being supported and maintained by her parents who have