AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR FAM No.200 of 2015 {Arising out of order dated 2-12-2015 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, in CMJC No.30/12

1. Nand Kishore Lal S/o Late Shri Pyarelal, Aged About 71 Years Caste Chandra, R/o C.M.I.G. 40, Nehru Nagar, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh ---- Appellant Versus

1. Shrimati Chanchala Lal W/o Late Shri Ashwani Kumar Lal, Caste Chandra, R/o Village Birra, Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir-

Champa Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Appellant Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate For Respondent Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Justice Goutam Bhaduri &

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment on Board Per Goutam Bhaduri, J.

04-07-2022

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 2-12-2015 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, in CMJC No.30/12 wherein maintenance has been directed to be paid to the widowed daughter-in-law (respondent herein) as against her father-

in-law (appellant herein).

2. The facts, in brief, are that the respondent was married to the son of the appellant namely; Ashwani Kumar Lal on 11-7-2008. The husband of the respondent died on 21-6-2012. According to the respondent, after the death of her husband there was a considerable change in the behaviour of in-laws towards her and she was almost deserted in the family. Having reported the facts to her father, she was taken to her parental home. The respondent further pleaded that the bank passbook and ATM card, which belong to her husband were kept by the in-laws. The respondent also pleaded that at village Haretikala, Tahsil Jaijaipur ancestral property of 11.78 acres and at village Jaijaipur 3.97 acres of agricultural land are held by the appellant. In addition, three shops and house situated at different places of Korba wherein right of late husband of the respondent is also vested. According to the respondent, she has no source of income to maintain herself, as such, an amount of Rs.7,000/- per month was claimed towards maintenance.

3. In reply to the averments made by the respondent, the appellant contended that the respondent herself left the matrimonial home and she was never deserted by his family members. He further contends that in order to treat the ailment of his son (husband of the respondent), considerable amount was spent, as such, the appellant does not have any source of income and, therefore, he is unable to pay the maintenance.

4. Learned family Court after evaluating the evidence by the order impugned directed the appellant to pay an amount of Rs.2,500/- per month towards maintenance of the respondent.

5. Mr. Sanjay Patel, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would submit that in order to get the maintenance from the father- in-law, the daughter-in-law is required to plead and prove that she does not have any source of income and she is unable to get the maintenance from the estate of her husband. According to him, these facts have not been proved by the respondent by placing reliable and cogent evidence. He would further submit that the document filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (henceforth ‘the CPC’) before this Court would show that certain lands have already been recorded in the name of daughter-in-law, therefore, she can earn her livelihood from such properties and consequently the father-in-law cannot be forced to pay the maintenance. To buttress his contention, learned counsel would place reliance upon the decisions rendered by this Court in Dayali Sukhlal Sahu v Anju Bai Santosh Sahu, [2010 (3) CGLJ 459] and Parwati v Danpatra Singh and Ors., [2021 (1) CGLJ 328]

6. Mr. Sourabh Sahu, learned counsel for the respondent, per contra, would submit that the respondent has pleaded that she is unable to maintain herself and the property, which was held by the appellant as a Manager, is a coparcenary property, wherein the right of the deceased husband of the respondent was vested. He would further submit