Roshni Pandey and Others Vs Ram Yagya Pandey

Court No. - 1

Case :- FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 52 of 2022

Appellant :- Roshni Pandey And Others Respondent :- Ram Yagya Pandey Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Atul Kumar Yadav,Jai Prakash Yadav

¶4

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

¶5

(C.M. Application No. 2 of 2022)

¶6

The application seeks condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Heard learned counsel for the applicant.

¶7

Cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay is sufficient.

¶8

The application is allowed and delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

¶9

(order on memo of appeal)

¶10

The instant appeal has been filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 challenging the judgment and order dated 15.07.2022 passed by the Principle Judge, Family Court, Ambedkar Nagar, dismissing Suit No. 541 of 2018, which had been filed by the appellants under Section 19 & 22 of the Hindu Adoption a`nd Maintenance Act, 1956.

¶11

The suit was filed against father-in-law of the appellant no. 1 and grandfather of appellant nos. 2 and 3 stating that the appellant no. 1 got married with the son of the respondent on 05.05.2009. Husband of the appellant no. 1 died on 05.09.2013. The respondent is not maintaining the appellants and therefore they are living at the house of the parents of appellant no. 1. The appellants had claimed payment of Rs. 5,000/- per month to each of them for their maintenance.

¶12

The respondent had filed a written statement stating that he is retired and is dependent upon his pension. He and his wife both

¶13

are suffering from various ailments. The appellant no. 1 is an educated woman and she is employed as a teacher in a private college and she is earning Rs. 25,000/- per month. The respondent expressed willingness for the appellants to live with him in his house.

¶14

The appellant no. 1 examined herself as PW-1 in the suit and she stated that she is living at her parents' house along with her daughters whereas in her cross-examination she stated that she and her daughters live in Shajadpur in the house of Lalji Yadav at the rent of Rs. 25,000/- per month. Her parents keep visiting her. Her daughters go to school by bus, the fees to her daughters is Rs. 600/- per month, their tuition fee is Rs. 900/- and all these expenses are borne by her father and brother.

¶15

Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, the Family Court recorded a finding that it cannot be said that the appellants are leading a good life either from the earnings of the appellant no. 1 or from the help provided by her father.

¶16

The family Court further held that the responsibility of fatherin-law to maintain his daughter in law can be enforced only if the father-in-law has means to do so from any coparcenary property in his possession, which has not been pleaded and proved by the appellants.

¶17

We have considered the facts and circumstances of the cases and gone through the material available on record.

¶18

Section 19 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act provides as follows:-

¶19

19. Maintenance of widowed daughter-in-law.—

¶20

(1) A Hindu wife, whether married before or after the commencement of this Act, 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 maintain herself out of her own earnings or other property or, where she has no property of her own, is unable to obtain maintenance—

¶21

(a) from the estate of her husband or her father or mother, or

¶22

(b) from her son or daughter, if any, or his or her estate.

¶23

(2) Any obligation under sub-section (1) shall not be enforceable if the father-in-law has not the means to do so from any coparcenary property in his possession out of which the daughter-in-law has not obtained any share, and any such obligation shall cease on the re-marriage of the daughter-in-law.

¶24

For claiming maintenance from her father-in-law, a lady has to prove that she is unable to maintain herself out of her own earnings or to obtain maintenance from her father. In the present case, the appellant no. 1 has clearly stated that she is residing in a rented house and is paying Rs. 25,000/- per month as house rent, her daughters-appellant nos. 2 & 3 are studying in good school and they to go school by school bus and all the expenses are borne by her father and brother, therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant no. 1 is unable to maintain herself out of her own earnings and is unable to obtain maintenance from her father.

¶25

Moreover, there is nothing on record to establish that the respondent has the means to maintain the appellants from any coparcenary property in his possession.

¶26

So far as the claim of maintenance of the appellant nos. 2 & 3 is concerned, they fall within the definition of 'dependent' as defined in Section 21 of the Act but Section 22 of the Act makes provision for payment of maintenance by the persons who have inherited an estate of the deceased. The respondent has not inherited any estate from the deceased and, therefore, the provision of Section 22 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act,1956 are not attracted in the present case.

¶27

In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any error or illegality in the judgment and order dated 15.07.2022 passed by the Principle Judge, Family Court, Ambedkar Nagar.

¶28

The first appeal lacks merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶29

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

¶30

Order Date :- 9.2.2023 Pradeep/-

¶31

Digitally signed by :- PRADEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Roshni Pandey and Others v. Ram Yagya Pandey

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roshni Pandey and Others v. Ram Yagya Pandey

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

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

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

Smt. Reeta Devi Vs Sri Rajendra Kumar

Sharad Verma Vs Ritu Katiyar