Advocates:
['SANJAY PATEL', 'MALAY SHRIVASTAVA', '', 'ABHIJEET MISHRA', 'Prateek Kumar singh']

1

FAM No.200 of 2015

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

2

FAM No.200 of 2015

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.

3

FAM No.200 of 2015

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 Sahu¹ and Parwati v

Danpatra Singh and Ors.².

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 Mana