A widowed daughter-in-law is entitled to interim maintenance if unable to maintain herself from her deceased husband's estate, as stipulated in Section 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act.

ORDER :

On 24.07.2024, none had appeared although as per office report, the respondent was served on 14.05.2024 as per the information uploaded on the website of Postal Department. Accordingly, by way of last indulgence, case was adjourned and it was directed to be listed today at the top of the list.

2. Today, when the case was taken up, none appeared for the respondent.

3. Thus, the respondent is proceeded ex parte.

4. This petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed against order dated 14.12.2023 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Rewa in case No.138-A/2023 by which application filed by the petitioner for grant of interim maintenance has been rejected on the ground that petitioner has failed to prima facie show that the respondent, who is the father-in-law of the petitioner is in possession of any coparcenary property.

5. Challenging the order passed by the Court below, it is submitted by counsel for petitioner that husband of the petitioner has expired and the petitioner has no means to maintain her. Accordingly, she filed an application under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act for grant of maintenance. An application for grant of interim maintenance was also filed but the same has been rejected by the impugned order.

6. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that after the death of her husband, respondent made an application to the Tahsildar, Tahsil Raghurajnagar, District Satna on the ground that Khasra No. 160/2, 390/2, 398, 399/2, 432/1, 451, 464 situated in village Naina, Tahsil Raghurajnagar, District Satna and Araji No.638/3/1, 639/734/2, 639/734/3 situated in village Batiakala, Tahsil Raghurajnagar, District Satna are recorded in the name of Late Devendra Singh. (It is submitted that Devendra Singh is her late husband). It was also mentioned in the said application by the respondent that the aforesaid land was an ancestral property and he got the same in partition and out of his own sweet will, he got the name of his son Devendra Singh mutated in the revenue records. On 31.03.2023 Devendra Singh has expired and now there is a possibility that petitioner may move an application for mutation of her name. It was further pleaded that Devendra Singh has lost his life on account of atrocities committed by the petitioner because she had also filed a case under Section 498-A of IPC and she is residing separately for the last three years and therefore, it was prayed that the application for mutation if any is filed by petitioner, then the same should not be allowed and the name of petitioner should not be mutated in the revenue records. It is submitted that still the name of petitioner has not been mutated in place of name of her husband and even petitioner is not in possession of the aforesaid lands. It is further submitted that the younger brother-in-law of petitioner (Devar) has also filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of aforesaid lands on the ground that Late Devendra Singh had executed a Will in the favour of respondent and the said suit is pending. By referring to the objection raised by the respondent before the revenue authorities, it is submitted that it is clear that the respondent is in possession of the lands belonging to her husband Late Shri Devendra Singh and therefore, the observation made by the trial Court that there is nothing on record to show that father-in-law is in possession of any coparcenary property is bad in law and thus, the order is liable to be set aside.

7. As already pointed out in spite of service of notice, none had appeared for the respondent.

8. Heard the learned