The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the term 'co-partioner' and the consideration of the source of funds for agricultural land holding in the context of joint Hindu family property under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.

1. This appeal under Section 19 of the Family Court Act has been filed against the judgment and order of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Varanasi dated 2.5.2017. The facts relevant for deciding the appeal are as under:

2. Smt. Shashikala Devi was married to one Rajendra Yadav, who expired on 1.11.2012. The widow having no other source to maintain herself, filed an application against the father-in-law under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as Act) claiming that she was entitled to be maintained by the father-in-law, as in the properties possessed by the father being plot nos. 441, 49, 47 and 48 village Gola, Pargana Katehar, Tehsil Sadar, District Varanasi, her husband was co-partioner and that the share of the husband after his death, has gone to father-in-law as the property was joint hindu family property.

3. An objection was raised in respect of maintainability of the application by the father-in-law on the ground that the agricultural property has to be dealt with as per the provisions of U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act. The widow daughter-in-law was not justified in contending that the property was joint hindu family property or that husband had a share in the said property, which has fallen in the share of the father subsequent to his death.

4. The Family Court has rejected the objection and has proceeded to hold that the application even if not maintainable under Section 19 of the Act, would be maintainable under Section 21 of the Act. Hence this appeal.

5. Counsel for the appellant contended before us that the finding that the application would not be maintainable under Section 21 of the Act is totally misconceived as Section 21 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 contains the definitions and does not deal with any right of maintenance.

6. We find that the contentions so raised on behalf of the appellant is factually correct inasmuch as Section 21 of the Act only defines dependent. However, we are of the opinion that this itself may not close the chapter so far as the maintainability of the application filed by the widowed daughter-in-law is concerned. We may record that more wrong mention of the section in the order of the court below will not result in depriving the widowed daughter-in-law of her right of maintenance being considered on merits.

7. We are of the opinion that having regard to the facts disclosed in the application filed by the wife for claiming maintenance against the father-in-law, her application would fall for consideration within Section 19 of the Act itself inasmuch as it has to be ascertained as to whether the agricultural land holding has its source from the funds of joint hindu family property or not. The use of the word 'co-partioner' in Section 19 Sub-clause 2, with reference to the purpose of providing maintenance to widowed daughter-in-law, who has no source of livelihood, has to be extended to include within its ambit that all such properties which are purchased from the corpus of the joint hindu family and as a logical consequence thereto the son would become co-partioner in respect of such property purchased from the joint hindu family funds from birth having regard to the Mitakshara Hindu Law.

8. We are not expressing any final opinion as to whether the agricultural property standing in the name of the appellant before us had been purchased from joint hindu family funds or not inasmuch as such issues need to be considered after evidence is led by the Family Court itself.

9. Counsel for the appellant, however, contended with reference to the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vimlaben Ajitbhai Patel Vs. Vatslaben Ashokbhai Patel and others reported in AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 2675, has held that such right of maintenance is not available to the husband against the property of the mother-in-law.

10. In our opinion, the judgment is fairly distinguishable vis-a-vis, the facts of the case in hand. So far as the judgment in th