Back
2018 Supreme(Jhk) 1790
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
D. N. PATEL, AMITAV K. GUPTA, JJ.
Janki Kumari @ Janki Devi, w/o Late Sitaram Yadav - Appellant
Versus
Indra Devi, w/o Late Sarju Yadav - Respondent
First Appeal No.358 of 2017
Decided On : 11-12-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate
Headnote:
Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 - Section 22 - Compassionate appointment - working with Bharat Coking Coal Limited - Appeal has been preferred by appellant who was original respondent before learned trial court in Civil Misc Case Civil Misc- Case was instituted by respondent –Devi before Principal Judge Family Court Dhanbad for getting maintenance Section Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act for sake of brevity hereinafter to be referred original applicant before trial court in Civil Misc- Case Devi- Her son was working with Bharat Coking Coal Limited which is a public sector undertaking who expired It appears from facts of case that this appellant who is wife deceased got compassionate appointment with Bharat Coking Coal Limited –Held, Case all parameters mentioned in Section have been considered and appreciated on basis of evidence on record especially in depositions given by Devi it appears that this appellant is staying separately from her mother-in-law- All these points have been taken care of by learned Family Court because in evidence these factors have been narrated by witnesses- Once evidences on record are appreciated these factors have also been appreciated- Looking to overall evidences on record no error has been committed by learned trial court in appreciating all grounds which are mentioned and amount which has been fixed as maintenance cannot be said to be an exaggerated amount or unreasonably excessive amount- On contrary maintenance amount fixed by learned trial court at absolutely fair just and proper- This appellant is fetching salary per month approximately from Bharat Coking Coal Limited - Public Sector undertaking as submitted by counsel for appellant Court mainly for reason that Section has given guidance to a Judge who is determining maintenance amount- There cannot be any hard and fast rule or mathematical formula regarding how to write a judgment by trial court - Appeal dismissed
ORDER :
D.N. PATEL, J.
1. This First Appeal has been preferred by the appellant, who was the original respondent before the learned trial court in Civil Misc. Case No.11 of 2014. This Civil Misc. Case No.11 of 2014 was instituted by the respondent – Indra Devi before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad, for getting maintenance under Section 22 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for the sake of brevity hereinafter to be referred to as “the Act, 1956).
2. Factual Matrix :
* The original applicant before the trial court in Civil Misc. Case No.11 of 2014 is (Smt.) Indra Devi. Her son namely, Sitaram Yadav, was working with Bharat Coking Coal Limited, which is a public sector undertaking, who expired on 13.04.2010.
* It appears from the facts of the case that this appellant who is wife of the deceased, Sitaram Yadav, got the compassionate appointment with Bharat Coking Coal Limited on 02.12.2011.
* At the time of getting job, this appellant had given an undertaking to the employer that she will maintain her mother-in-law namely, Indra Devi.
* It further appears from the facts of this case that as the wife of Sitaram Yadav viz.-Janki Kumari @ Janki Devi, was not maintaining the mother of her husband namely, Indra Devi, an application for maintenance under Section 22 of the Act, 1956, was instituted by Indira Devi, against Janki Kumari @ Janki Devi before the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad, being Civil Misc. Case No.11 of 2014.
* This application was allowed by the learned trial court vide judgment and order dated 17.11.2017, whereby, the learned trial court has awarded Rs.7,500/-per month as maintenance, and hence, the original respondent, in Civil Misc. Case No.11 of 2014, has preferred the present First Appeal.
Reasons :
3. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that Indra Devi had lost her son – Sitaram Yadav on 02.12.2011, and therefore, the respondent as the wife of Sitaram Yadav got the compassionate appointment with the Bharat Coking Coal Limited, a public sector undertaking.
4. It further appears from the facts of the case that as she got the job on compassionate basis, an undertaking was also filed by this appellant that she will maintain her mother-in-law – Indra Devi.
5. Moreover, as she was not maintaining her mother-in-law, Indra Devi preferred maintenance application under Section 22 of the Act, 1956. For ready reference Section 22 of the Act, 1956, reads as under :-
“22. Maintenance of dependents – (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), the heirs of a deceased Hindu are bound to maintain the dependents of the deceased out of the estate inherited by them from the deceased.
(2) Where a dependent has not obtained, by testamentary or interest succession, any share in the estate of a Hindu dying after the commencement of this Act, the dependent shall be entitled, subject to the provisions of this Act, to maintenance from those who take the estate.
(3) The liability of each of the persons who takes the estate shall be in proportion to the value of the share or part of the estate taken by him or her.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (2) or sub-section (3), no person who is himself or herself a dependent shall be liable to contribute to the maintenance of others, if he or she has obtained a share or part the value of which is, or would, if the liability to contribute were enforced, become less than what would be awarded to him or her by way of maintenance under this Act.”
(Emphasis supplied)
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as per sub-Section (2) of Section 22 of the Act, 1956, Indira Devi is not entitled for maintenance, because she has inherited 6 bighas of land of her husband.
This contention is not accepted by this Court mainly for the following reasons:-
(a) The factual averments which are necessary, have not been raised at all, in the written statement, filed by this appellant i
