##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI F.A. No. 229 of 2024 Roshan Lal Saw, aged about 83 years, S/o Late Santosh Kumar Mahto, R/o Village & P.O. Kalyanpur, P.S. Barwadda, District Dhanbad ... Appellant Versus

1. Nilam Kumari, aged about 35 years, w/o Late Suraj Kumar, Father-in-law Roshan Lal Saw;

2. Sarthak Kumar Saw, aged about 10 years, s/o Late Suraj Kumar, Grand father Roshan Lal Saw

3. Samar Kumar Saw, aged about 04 years, S/o Late Suraj Kumar, Grand father Roshan Lal Saw;

Respondent nos. 3 and 4 represented through their natural Guardina mother Nilam Kumari, all are R/o village & P.O. Kalyanpur, P.S. Barwadda, District Dhanbad at present R/o village & P.O Gomiya, P.S. Gomiya, District Bokaro ... Respondents ---------

CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ PRASAD ---------

For the Appellant :Mr Mahesh Tewari, Advocate For the Respondents :Mr Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate ---------

Reserved on: 06/10/2026 Pronounced on: 03 /11/2026 Per: Manoj Prasad, J.

1. Heard Mr Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, and Mr Rakesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant/Opposite Party under Section 19(1) of the Family Court Act, impleading the Petitioner, namely Nilam Kumari, Sarthak Kumar Saw and Samar Kumar Saw, as Respondent. Of these, respondent nos. 2 and 3 are minors, represented by their mother and natural guardian, Nilam Kumari.

3. The appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11.06.2024, passed in Original Maintenance Case No. 403 of 2023, which was registered based on an application filed under Sections 19 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, by the present respondents against the present appellant. The appellant is the grandfather of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and the father-in-law of respondent No. 1, Nilam Kumari.

4. The facts of the case are that the present respondents filed an application under Sections 19 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, stating that she is the widow of Suraj Kumar, the only son of the present appellant. Suraj Kumar is alleged to have died on 27.10.2020 at Hyderabad, Telangana, due to an illness. She further states that her marriage was solemnised on 06.12.2010 in accordance with Hindu rituals, and that she has two sons born out of wedlock with Suraj Kumar. After the death of Suraj Kumar, the present appellant's behaviour towards her and her children was not good. She and her children were not maintained by the present appellant. Attempts at settlement and reconciliation through the Panchayat were made but to no effect. Due to lack of maintenance, the children were also suffering in their proper education. It is also stated that there was no independent source of livelihood, nor did she receive any share in the deceased's estate, and hence the application for maintenance was filed, alleging inter alia that the present appellant was receiving more than Rs.32,000/- per month as pension, had more than Rs.80,00,000/- in his fixed deposit, and had other sources of income, with the cumulative monthly income being about Rs.1,00,000/-. A prayer for monthly maintenance of Rs.75,000/- was made.

5. The present appellant, who was the respondent/opposite party before the Trial Court, appeared and contested the applicant's claim, admitting that Suraj Kumar was his only son, that the present respondent, namely Nilam Kumari, was Suraj Kumar's widow, and that the other respondents are Suraj Kumar's sons. It was further admitted that Suraj Kumar died at Asian Institute of Gastroenterology Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad, Telangana, where he was under treatment. He alleges that after the husband's death, the present respondent, namely Nilam Kumari, behaved badly and stopped taking care of the aged father-in-law and mother-in-law, i.e., the present appellant and his wife. Despite all this, the present appellant was maintaining his daugh