Dismissed

Kanti Devi and Another v. State of Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Feb 2023/139/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenges a Family Court decree dismissing a suit for maintenance. The appellants, a widow and her daughter, claimed maintenance from their father-in-law after estrangement. The High Court upheld the lower court's finding that the widow is maintained by her own father, thus disentitling her to claim support from her father-in-law.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the order of the Family Court.

Kanti Devi and Another Vs State of Thru. Prin… — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 139 of 2022

¶3

Appellant :- Kanti Devi And Another Respondent :- State Of Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Arvind Kumar,Aditya Kumar Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the appellant.

¶6

The instant appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 8.11.2022 passed by the Addl. Principal Judge-II, Family Court, Barabanki, dismissing Matrimonial Case No. 103 of 2020, which was filed by the appellants under sections 19/21/22 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 claiming maintenance from the father-in-law of the Appellant No. 1 and grandfather of the Appellant No. 2.

¶7

It was pleaded in the suit filed by the appellants that the husband of the appellant no. 1 and his family members had turned the appellants out of their house on 9.8.2011, regarding which proceedings had been initiated by the appellants. Husband of the appellant died on 26.10.2013. The appellants stated that the respondent holds about 13-Bigha agricultural land. It was further stated that the parents of the appellant no. 1 are burdened by the family responsibilities and, therefore, they are not capable of maintaining the appellants.

¶8

The suit was defended by the respondent by filing a written statement, stating that he is aged more than 65 years and does not keep good health. His wife is also of a similar age and she also keeps unwell. He further stated that he did not ever decline to keep the appellants in his house, but the appellants

¶9

themselves did not come to live with him. The appellants had left his house about 15 years ago and they did not ever returned to his house.

¶10

The appellant no. 1 Kanti Devi examined herself as P.W.1 in the suit.

¶11

P.W.2, Parmatma stated that Anand Kumar, father of the appellant no. 1 has about 25-Bigha agricultural land. He is a Farmer Pradhan of the village. He has a pucca house and also a kachcha house besides the pucca house. He has 1.5-2 Bigha grove of Mangoes. He has a Tractor, Engine, Tubewell, the Potato sowing machine, etc. and the appellants live with him in his house.

¶12

P.W.3, Anand Kumar, who is father of the appellant no. 1, stated that he has approximately 6 acre, i.e. 30-Bigha land on which he and his sons do the agricultural work. He maintains the appellants.

¶13

Section 19 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956 provides that "A Hindu wife shall be entitled to be maintained after the death of her husband, by her father-in-law, provided, and to the extent that she is unable to obtain maintenance from her father.”

¶14

From the evidence led by the appellant before the Family Court it was evident that the appellants are being maintained by the father of the appellant no. 1, therefore, it cannot be said that the appellants are unable to obtain maintenance from the father of the appellant no. 1.

¶15

For the aforesaid reason, the appellants are not entitled to claim maintenance from the respondent. We find no error or

¶16

illegality in the judgment and decree dated 8.11.2022 passed by the Addl. Principal Judge-II, Family Court, Barabanki, dismissing the suit filed by the appellants claiming maintenance from the respondent. The appeal lacks merits and the same is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶17

( Subhash Vidarthi, J. ) ( Ramesh Sinha, J. )

¶18

Order Date :- 9.2.2023 A.Nigam

¶19

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Kanti Devi and Another v. State of Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanti Devi and Another v. State of Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surendra Singh Vs Satyendra Singh and Ors.

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation and Water Resources Deptt. Govt. Lko. and Another Vs Rajesh Kumar Chaturvedi

State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Irrigation and Water Resources Deptt. Lko. and Another Vs Surendra Pratap Singh

Smt. Reeta Devi Vs Sri Rajendra Kumar

Sharad Verma Vs Ritu Katiyar

Roshni Pandey and Others Vs Ram Yagya Pandey