The obligation of a grand father to maintain the daughter of his deceased son is contingent upon inheritance of estate, and the court may consider the financial status of the mother in determining entitlement to maintenance.

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

1. Present revision petition has been filed for setting aside the impugned order dated 22.11.2022 (Annexure P-5) passed by Ld. Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar whereby the order dated 21.12.2017 (Annexure P-3) passed by Ld. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Yamuna Nagar granting maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to petitioner no.2-minor Muskan, has been set aside.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner no.1 is daughter-in-law, and petitioner no.2 is minor granddaughter of the respondents herein. Petitioner no.2 is represented through her Natural Guardian and her next friend, her mother-petitioner no.1. Deceased Vineet Kumar was son of respondent no.1 while respondent no.2 is his step mother. Petitioner no.1 is widow of deceased Vineet Kumar. He was murdered in the year 2013 while in judicial custody. It is case of the petitioners that after the death of Vineet Kumar, she was thrown out of her matrimonial home. She had no source of income and required at least Rs.25,000/- per month for basic amenities whereas the respondents have ancestral property in the shape of 10 acres of agricultural land, and respondent no.1 also purchased 4-1/2 acres of land in the name of respondent no.2 from a joint Hindu family property. Respondent no. 1 is further stated to have 40% share in Dharam Kanta.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in view of the above facts, petitioner no.2 being minor granddaughter of the respondents was entitled to maintenance from the respondents under the provisions of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act,1956. It is accordingly prayed that the impugned order dated 22.11.2022 be set aside, whereby the order dated 21.12.2017 granting maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to petitioner no.2 has been set aside by the Ld. Additional District Judge. In support, learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon judgment of this Court in Sunil Sachdeva v Rashmi and another bearing CRM-M-5732 of 2017, decided on 23.12.2022.

4. No other argument has been raised.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

6. I have gone through the well-reasoned and detailed impugned order passed by the Ld. Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar. The following relevant paras are reproduced hereunder:-

“13. Assailing the impugned judgment dated 21.12.2017, learned counsel for appellant argued that the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court is based on surmises and conjectures and is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for appellant argued that learned trial court has not applied its judicial mind while passing impugned judgment. It is further argued that appellant is not liable, to provide any maintenance to the petitioner No.2 because as per provisions of Section 22 of The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (here- in-after referred to as The Act), a grand father is liable to maintain his grand child only if he has inherited estate from his deceased father However, in the present case, no estate has been inherited by the appellant from his deceased Vinit. So, he is not liable to pay any maintenance to the respondent Muskan. It is further argued that respondent Rekha Rani mother of Muskan is earning sufficient money by way of tuitions and stitching and this fact has been admitted by her in her cross-examinations in the petition for custody of minor Muskan filed by appellant against her. It is further argued that Hon'ble High Court in similar petition has granted compensation of Rs.12 lakhs to respondent Rekha Rani and Muskan In support of his contention, learned counsel for appellant has placed on record order dated 25.01.2018 passed in CWP No.19349 of 2015 titled Rekha Rani and another versus State of Haryana and others. It is further. contended that Rs.3,00,000/- which were given as compensation to appellant has also been deposited by him in the name of Muskan. It is further submitted that appellant is a pensioner and is receiving very meager amount fro