Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.—This appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been preferred by the appellant, father-in-law of respondent No.1 and grand-father of respondents 2 and 3. The trial Court has granted a decree of maintenance in favour of the respondents directing the appellant to pay maintenance amount of Rs.2000/- per month to the daughter-in-law and Rs.1000/- each to two granddaughters who are respondents 2 and 3 herein.

2. Facts of the case briefly stated are that, respondent No.1 Premlata Sahu was married with appellant’s son Bhupesh on 04-05-2001 at village Loharsi. Respondent No.2 Dawali and respondent No.3 Garima are the children out of the wedlock. Bhupesh met untimely death on 27-05-2011. After death ceremony and other rituals were over, both the parties went to the house of the appellant at village Dipka. At this place, the appellant used to misbehave with respondent No.1 on the allegation that she practices witchcraft. On 18-06-2012, the appellant expelled respondent No.1 from the house on which she went back to her parental house.

3. Respondent No.1 has averred in the said application for grant of maintenance that the appellant earns Rs.40,000/- per month as salary and has agricultural land at village Loharsi from which he earns Rs.30,000/- per year, whereas, she has no source of income, therefore, the appellant be directed to pay maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to each of the applicants/respondents.

4. It was the stand of the appellant before the Family Court that in order to give shelter and maintenance to the respondents he had brought the respondents to his house at Dipka where they were living comfortably, however, respondent No.1 left the house of the appellant, therefore, he is not liable to provide any maintenance amount to the respondents. It was pleaded that respondent No.1 has ancestral land, therefore, it is not a case where she cannot claim maintenance from her father. Therefore, the application is not maintainable.

5. In course of trial before the Family Court, respondent No.1 examined herself as AW-1, Radheshyam Patel (AW-2), her father Biharilal (AW-3) and Pramod Kumar (AW-4). The appellant examined Tosram as NAW-1, Mithailal (himself) as NAW-2, Baldau Prasad (NAW-3) and Shyamcharan (NAW-4).

6. Learned Family Court has allowed maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- to respondent No.1 and Rs.1,000/- each to respondents 2 and 3 on appreciation that the appellant being employed in SECL having monthly salary of Rs.60,000/- per month he should pay the said amount for the maintenance of the respondents.

7. It is argued that the respondent had moved an application under Section 19 and 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (henceforth ‘the Act, 1956’). However, Section 20 is not applicable in the case and entitlement to the maintenance would be governed only under Section 19 of the Act, 1956 wherein the appellant is liable to provide maintenance to the extent respondent No.1 or her late husband had share in the ancestral property. It is argued that the appellant’s salary has wrongly been considered to assess and quantify the amount of maintenance to be granted in favour of the respondents.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would support the impugned order. According to him, the appellant has got properties as well as he being employed, he is liable to pay the amount of maintenance which is otherwise not on higher side.

9. Section 19 of the Act, 1956 provides for maintenance of widowed daughter-in-law. Said provision reads as under:—

19. Maintenance of widowed daughter-in-law—(1) A Hindu wife, whether married before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be entitled to be maintained after the death of her husband by her father-inlaw:

Provided and to the extent that she is unable to maintain herself out of her own earnings or other property or, where she has no property of her own, is unable to obtain maintenance––

(a) from the estate of her