Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. VENUGOPAL
Muthammal (died) & Others
Versus
V. Pavunambal & Another
S.A.No.762 of 1995
Decided On: 09-04-2012
Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 - Section 19 - Maintenance - Right of daughter-in-law to claim maintenance from Father-in-Law - Conditions - Coparcenary property - Share in the property - Partition suit - Maintainability.
Fact of the Case:
The Plaintiffs, being the widow and daughter of the deceased Panchatcharam, filed a suit for maintenance against the Defendants, being the Father-in-Law, Mother-in-Law, and brother-in-law of the 1st Plaintiff. The Plaintiffs claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs.350/- per month for two years, Rs.350/- per month for one year, Rs.1000/- per annum for clothing, and Rs.1000/- per annum for separate residence. The Defendants contended that the Plaintiffs were not entitled to maintenance as they were entitled to a share in the joint family properties and that they had not filed a partition suit. The trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the Plaintiffs, and the First Appellate Court affirmed the trial Court's decision.
Finding of the Court:
The Second Appeal was allowed, and the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court and the First Appellate Court were set aside. The Court held that the Plaintiffs were not entitled to claim maintenance from the Defendants as they were entitled to a share in the joint family properties. The Court further held that the Plaintiffs' suit for maintenance was not maintainable in law.
Issues: 1. Whether the Plaintiffs were entitled to claim maintenance from the Defendants? 2. Whether the Plaintiffs' suit for maintenance was maintainable in law?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The right of a daughter-in-law to claim maintenance from her Father-in-Law under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 is subject to certain conditions, one of which is that the daughter-in-law is not able to maintain herself from the estate of her parents. 2. In the present case, the Plaintiffs were entitled to a share in the joint family properties, and therefore, they were not entitled to claim maintenance from the Defendants. 3. A suit for maintenance is not maintainable in law if the Plaintiffs are entitled to a share in the joint family properties.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal was allowed, and the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court and the First Appellate Court were set aside. The Court held that the Plaintiffs were not entitled to claim maintenance from the Defendants as they were entitled to a share in the joint family properties. The Court further held that the Plaintiffs' suit for maintenance was not maintainable in law.
1. The Appellants/Defendants 2 and 3 have focussed this instant Second Appeal adverting upon the Judgment and Decree dated 23.08.1994 in A.S.No.61 of 1992 passed by the Learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu in affirming the Judgment and Decree dated 31.03.1992 in O.S.No.345 of 1990 passed by the Learned District Munsif, Maduranthagam.
2. After filing of the Second Appeal, the 1st Appellant/2nd Defendant has expired and the 2nd Appellant/3rd Defendant, who is already on record, has been recorded as Legal Representative of the deceased 1st Appellant/2nd Defendant. Also, the Appellants 3 and 4 have been brought on record as Legal Representatives of the deceased 1st Appellant/2nd Defendant.
3. The Plaint averments of Respondents/Plaintiffs:
(i)The 1st Plaintiff is the mother of the 2nd Plaintiff. The Defendants 1 and 2 are Father-in-Law and Mother-in-Law of the 1st Plaintiff. The 3rd Defendant is the brother-in-law of the 1st Plaintiff. The 1st Respondent/ 1st Plaintiff is the wife of Panchatcharam. The said Panchatcharam died intestate during the year 1975 leaving the Respondents/Plaintiffs as his Legal Heirs along with the 2nd Defendant. Panchatcharam is the son of 1st Defendant (Manicka Mudaliar).
(ii)According to the Plaintiffs, they are entitled to 1/3rd share in the entire movable and immovable properties of the family. The Respondents/Plaintiffs have issued a lawyer's notice on 02.01.1979 for maintenance and for allotment of 1/3rd share together with profits. However, the Defendants failed to comply with the same. Another notice on 06.08.1989 has been sent through the lawyer. The Defendants sent a false reply. The Respondents/Plaintiffs have been keeping quite on the hope that the matter will be settled since the Defendants are close relatives. The Defendants have been assuring before the village elders that they would be giving substantial amounts. But no amount has been paid so far.
(iii)The 1st Respondent/1st Plaintiff is getting monthly pension of Rs.300/-. It is not enough for even a square meal per day. She has to maintain, educate her daughter and that the receipt of the family pension is not sufficient. The Respondents/Plaintiffs are supported by the parents of the 1st Respondent/1st Plaintiff. They have also maintained a large family. Hence forthwith it is not possible for the Respondents/Plaintiffs to live in the house of 1st Respondent/1st Plaintiff's parents house. The Respondents/Plaintiffs could claim maintenance from the family properties as per Hindu Law. The Respondents/Plaintiffs now claim a sum a sum of Rs.350/- towards maintenance for herself and her daughter. She is entitled to a sum of Rs.1000/- per annum towards clothing, Rs.1000/- per annum for separate residence. The Defendants are bound to provide maintenance. It is not possible for the Plaintiffs to live with her parents.
(iv) At the time of marriage, the 1st Respondent/1st Plaintiff have been given the following Sreedhan Articles: (1)Thirumangalyam with Mangapathu 1/4 sovereign; (2) Vazhaseepu - 1 sovereign; (3)Nanal 1 sovereign; 4)Gundu 2 ½ sovereign and 17 household articles which have not been returned till to-day for which the Respondents/Plaintiffs reserved their right to claim later.
(v)The Plaint 'A' schedule properties are ancestral one, in which the Respondents/Plaintiffs have 1/3rd share. They have also got a right of charge for maintenance. In spite of repeated demands made by the Respondents/Plaintiffs, maintenance amount has not been paid. A false reply has been given to the notice dated 06.08.1989 sent by Respondents/Plaintiffs. The Defendants are evading to maintain the Plaintiffs. Hence, the Respondents/Plaintiffs have laid the suit against the Defendants claiming
(a) past maintenance Rs.350/- per month for two years;
(b) future maintenance Rs.350/- per month for one year;
(c) Rs.1000/- per annum for clothing; and
(d) Rs.1000/- per annum for separate residence and for creating a charge over the schedule
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
