Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Paramjeet Singh, J.
Siri Ram —Appellant
versus
Suman —Respondent
Regular Second Appeal No.1563 of 2014 (O&M)
Decided on 21.3.2014
Facts of the case:
Where respondent filed petition under section 19 of the act against her father-in-law, claiming that her husband died on 15.08.2005 in a Motor Accident and that she had not solemnized second marriage and that she had no source of income to maintain herself, whereas the respondent had good source of income and coparcenary property. The trial court accepted the petition and awarded Rs. 4,000/- per month as maintenance.
Finding of the court.
It was held that proviso to section 19 provides that a widowed daughter-in-law can claim maintenance from her father-in-law subject to certain conditions such as 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 from estate of her husband, parents or children. It has also come on evidence that parents of the petitioner have expired. In Balbir Kaur v. Harinder Kaur, 2003(1)RCR (Civil) 624(P&H) , it has been observed that widowed daughter-in-law is entitled to claim maintenance even from the self-acquired property of her father-in-law. It has been held by the courts below that husband of the petitioner was running the electronic shop and was earning Rs. 30,000 per month and after his death, the articles were lying in his shop for sale and purchase and this fact has been admitted by the father-in-law in his cross-examination. The court has discretion in view of section 23 of the act for assessing maintenance which is to be exercised on the basis of position, condition, and circumstances of the parties. The courts below rightly granted
Rs. 4,000/- per month to the respondent. (Paras 12 and 13)
Paramjeet Singh, J.—This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 11.01.2012 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Ambala whereby petition under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (in short ‘the Act, 1956’) filed by respondent herein has been accepted and against the judgment and decree dated 24.12.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ambala whereby appeal preferred by the appellant has been dismissed.
2. For convenience sake, reference to parties is being made as per their status in the petition.
3. The detailed facts are already recapitulated in the judgments of the courts below and are not required to be reproduced. However, the brief facts are to the effect that the petitioner filed petition seeking maintenance from the respondent under the Act, 1956. It was pleaded that the petitioner got married to Naresh Kumar Thukral son of Siri Ram Thukral (respondent) about five years ago in accordance with the Hindu rites and rituals. A female child namely Muskan was born from the said wedlock. She is living with the petitioner. The husband of the petitioner died on 15.08.2005 in a motor vehicle accident. He was doing the business of electrical articles in a rented shop No.50, M.C.Market, Jagadhari Gate, Ambala City and was earning Rs.30,000/- to 35,000/- per month. The respondent had purchased house No.147, Ram Nagar, Ambala City with the financial help of said Naresh Kumar (since deceased). After the death of said Naresh Kumar, the respondent started to interfere in the shop of her husband and refused to maintain the petitioner and her minor daughter. The petitioner has not solemnized second marriage till date. The petitioner has no source of income to maintain herself as well as her minor daughter. Though, the petitioner alongwith her daughter has inherited the shop and business of her husband, but the respondent is pocketing the entire income from the shop. The respondent has good source of income and has coparcenary movable and immovable property.
4. The respondent resisted the petition and filed written statement taking various preliminary objections. On merits, relationship has been admitted. It was pleaded that his son (since deceased) was earning Rs.10,0001- to Rs.15,000/ per month by repair work from the shop wherein he was a sub-tenant. In the year 1980, he had purchased the plot for his own residential purposes. At the time of construction of said house in 1984, his son was aged of 10-12 years, therefore, question of financial help does not arise. It was further pleaded that since said Naresh was doing only the repair work, therefore, no material was lying in the shop and the shop was lying closed after his death. The petitioner herself had left the matrimonial home at her own and used to live with her parents even during the life-time of Naresh. The petitioner is also doing the tailoring work and is also running the beauty parlour, thereby earning sufficient amount to maintain herself. The respondent has never refused to keep and maintain the respondent and her minor daughter with him. Other averments in petition were denied.
5. Replication was filed controverting the pleas raised in written statement and reiterating the pleas taken in the plaint. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the Court of first instance framed following issues:
“1. Whether the respondent is the father-in-law of the petitioner? OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to seek the maintenance from the respondent under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956? OPP
3. In case issues No.1 and 2 are decided in favour of the plaintiff then what is the amount of maintenance to be awarded to the petitioner? OPP
4. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD
5. Relief.”
6. After appreciating the evidence, the Court of first instance accepted the petition and directed the respondent to pay Rs.4,000/- per m
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
