The obligation of maintenance under Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act does not apply without appropriate pleading of Hindu law for members of Scheduled Tribes.

1. This appeal has been preferred under S.19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the impugned judgment dated 10.9.2013 passed by the Judge, Family Court Camp Court, Katghora, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh in M.J.C. No. 2 of 2012, by which an application filed by the appellant under S.19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act') was rejected.

2. The facts of the case are that the appellant was married to son of the respondent in the year 1999. Out of this wedlock, two sons were born and on the date of filing of the application under S.19 of the Act, they were aged about 14 and 16 years, respectively. Husband of the appellant, namely, Mewalal expired on 8.12.2009. The appellant was driven out of the matrimonial home during the lifetime of her husband Mewalal. On an application filed by her for maintenance, by order of the Court, deceased Mewalal used to pay Rs.600/- per month as maintenance. After the death of her husband, respondent / father - in - law neglected in maintenance of the appellant. Respondent is the owner of about 10 acres of agricultural land and apart from that he is engaged in business of vegetables and raising cattle and he earns Rs.1,00,000/- per annum. The land in possession of the respondent is ancestral. The appellant filed an application in the court of Tehsil Podiuproda, Korba for partition of land which was rejected by order dated 30.9.2011. Therefore, by filing the application under S.19 of the Act, the appellant prayed for maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month from the respondent.

3. The respondent admitted that the appellant is the wife of his deceased son and he has two grand - children aged 14 and 16 years, respectively. It was also admitted that his deceased son Mewalal was ordered by the court to pay maintenance of Rs.600/- to the appellant. According to the respondent, the appellant deserted her husband and children and was residing in her paternal home on her own will. The respondent has taken up the responsibility of the siblings of his deceased son. He denied that he is having ancestral property and also other sources of income. He also stated that he is an old person having no source of income and as such the appellant is not entitled to seek maintenance. Hence, the respondent prayed for rejection of the application for maintenance filed by the appellant.

4. The court below after hearing both the parties passed the impugned judgment in which it was held that the appellant is not entitled for maintenance and her application was rejected on the grounds that the appellant herself is employed as Peon in Primary School, Bapupara and getting monthly salary and the respondent is an old aged person.

5. The grounds in this appeal are that the trial court has passed an erroneous judgment rejecting the claim of the appellant and the finding that the respondent is 70 years, old and dependent on his sons is erroneous because he is the holder of the joint family property. The appellant being in a job on the basis of ad hoc appointment, cannot be the ground for disentitling her to obtain maintenance under S.19 of the Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act - ) which clearly provides that daughter - in - law is entitled for maintenance. Hence, it is prayed that the impugned judgment be set aside and the order of maintenance may be passed.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent is a man of means. The respondent admitted in his statement that he is the owner of six acres of agricultural land which is being cultivated by his younger son and grandsons. As per provisions under S.19 of the Act, the