Dependants of a deceased are entitled to maintenance from the estate, regardless of already receiving a share, as long as the estate includes pension and has not been fully apportioned.

JUDGMENT

Talapatra, J. - Heard Mr. R.G. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. D.C. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. The appellant, namely Moutushi Chakraborty is the daughter of Narayan Chakraborty, apparently from the 'second marriage' in subsistence of the marriage of Narayan Chakraborty with Manju Deb, the respondent herein. In the proceeding being Misc.58 of 2013, for issuance of the succession certificate, it has been held that the appellant's mother, namely Smt. Karuna Chakraborty cannot claim any maintenance as she is not legally married wife of Narayan Chakraborty. But, there cannot be any dispute that the appellant has a right over the property/estate of the deceased for all purposes. Such right has been acknowledged by the court of the Civil Judge, Sr. Division, in Misc [Suc] No.114 of 1999, where it has been declared that the appellant is one of the legal heirs and there cannot be any dispute in this regard. The appellant and her mother, Karuna Chakraborty filed a petition under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 seeking maintenance in favour of the appellant at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month from the first wife of the deceased who is now receiving family pension for death of Narayan Chakraborty. Evidence was recorded. On appreciation of the evidence, the Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura has observed as follows:

"It is the admitted position that the petitioner No.1 has received 1/4th share of the Death cum Retirement Benefits accruing to Lt. Narayan Chakraborty.

Thus the opposite party is not bound under Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, to provide for the petitioner No.1.

Moreover, as per Sec. 23 of the Act, it is the discretion of the court to grant maintenance under the provisions of this Act. I do not find any just ground to grant maintenance to the petitioner No.1 who has already received her share of inheritance. Whether the said share is sufficient or not is not a question that is to be determined in this case."

3. Mr. R.G. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has seriously criticized the said order showing that when someone filed the pleadings claiming maintenance it has to be determined by the court that whether she has sufficient source of income to maintain herself or not. It is not a mechanical process. Moreover, Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel has submitted that the interpretation of Section 21 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 is totally unacceptable. Section 21 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 defines the 'dependants' for the purpose of Chapter-III of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. The dependants are the relatives of the deceased who are:

(i) his or her father;

(ii) his or her mother;

(iii) his widow, so long as she does not re-marry;

(iv) his or her son or the son of his predeceased son or the son of a predeceased son of his predeceased son, so long as he is a minor; provided and to the extent that he is unable to obtain maintenance, in the case of a grandson from his father's or mother's estate, and in the case of a great grand-son, from the estate of his father or mother or father's father or father's mother;

(v) his or her unmarried daughter, or the unmarried daughter of his predeceased son or the unmarried daughter of a predeceased son of his predeceased son, so long as she remains unmarried: provided and to the extent that she is unable to obtain maintenance, in the case of a grand-daughter from her father's or mother's estate and in the case of a great-grand-daughter from the estate of h