Dismissed

Jayanti Devi v. Ramdeo Shaw

Orissa HC23 Jul 2019MATA/2/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Orissa High Court dismissed the appeal filed by a wife against her parents-in-law. Upholding the Family Court's order, the Court held that as the appellant was appointed under the rehabilitation scheme, she succeeded the liabilities of her deceased husband and was legally bound to maintain her aged parents-in-law when they lacked independent income.

What did the court decide?

Maintenance of Rs.500 per month to each respondent was allowed; enhancement claim dismissed.

Jayanti Devi Vs Ramdeo Shaw — Maintenance and Alimony | Orissa HC (2019)

¶1

ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK

¶2

MATA No. 2 OF 2009

¶3

(In the matter of an appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984)

¶4

¶5

Jayanti Devi @ Damayanti …… Appellant

¶6

-Versus-

¶7

Ramdeo Shaw & another ...... Respondents

¶8

For Appellant :M/s. Maheswar Mohanty, R.K. Dash, P. Jena.

¶9

For Respondents : Mr. D.K. Sahoo-1, B.K. Behera & J.P. Singh, M/s. Bipin Ku. Choudhury, Anam Ch. Panda.

¶10

P R E S E N T :-

¶11

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. MISHRA AND

¶12

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K. MISHRA

¶13

¶14

Date of hearing & Judgment – 23.07.2019

¶15

S.K. Mishra, J. In this appeal, the respondent before the Judge, Family Court, Rourkela in C.P. No.6 of 2007 assails the judgment dated 12.12.2008, whereby the court of original jurisdiction allowed the petition filed by the parents-in-law of the appellant and directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.500/- per month to each of the respondents for maintenance.

¶16

¶17

Case of the petitioners in C.P. No.6 of 2007 being the respondents herein is that the respondents are very old. Their son (appellant’s husband) Pramod was working in Lathikata Rural Post Office. Pramod died by a vehicular accident on 22.04.1998. The appellant got the job of her deceased husband under rehabilitation scheme on compassionate ground with an undertaking before the postal authorities to look after the respondents and three minor children of respondents. The appellant also got all the death benefits of her deceased husband by way of Rs.80,000/- by order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Life Insurance benefit of the deceased of Rs.50,000/- and death benefit of the deceased from the Postal Department amounting to Rs.1,00,000/-. But the appellant despite of getting the service of her deceased husband and his other death benefit refused to maintain and take care of the respondentspetitioners therein and lived separately from the respondents. The appellant is getting salary of Rs.4000/- per month.

¶18

The respondent in C.P. No.6 of 2007 is the appellant in this case. She has taken the plea that after the death of her husband, she was appointed by the postal authorities on her own application and not under any rehabilitation scheme. She has not given any undertaking before the postal authorities, at the time of

¶19

her appointment, to maintain the respondents and the minor

¶20

¶21

children of the respondents. The respondents have sold their landed property for Rs.5,00,000/- at their native place from which they get interest of Rs.5,000/- per month. The respondents have got two other living major earning sons who are liable to maintain the respondent but they have not been impleaded as parties in C.P. No.6 of 2007.

¶22

On such pleading, learned Judge, Family Court,

¶23

Rourkela cast three issues. One is relating to maintainability of the application. Second is relating to the liability of the present appellant to maintain her father-in-law and mother-in-law and the quantum of maintenance. Third is relating to the other reliefs that the respondents are entitled to.

¶24

4.(a) Deciding issue no.2 and relying upon the provision of Section 20(1) and (3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 and also placing reliance upon the decision reported in AIR 2007 (NOC) 898, (Rajasthan), learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela held that after expiry of the husband of the appellant who happens to be the son of the respondents, the appellant being an earning member of the family, she has been given rehabilitation assistance by giving posting in the Postal Department after demise of her husband held that she is liable to pay the maintenance.

¶25

¶26

In this case, we have taken into consideration the evidence laid on behalf of the appellant and the respondents and come to the conclusion that there is enough material on record to show that the appellant has been given appointment under rehabilitation assistance scheme in the Postal Department in place of her husband. Therefore, she is liable inherits all the liabilities of her deceased husband.

¶27

5.(a) Moreover, there is no evidence on record to show that the respondents have any independent income to maintain themselves. Other two sons of the respondents are not very well placed and not earning very huge amount of money to maintain their parents. On the contrary, the appellant herself has availed the rehabilitation assistance scheme. Therefore, she is liable to maintain. Moreover, in this connection, the provision of 20, 21 and 22 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 should be taken into consideration. We feel it appropriate to take note of the exact word used by the Parliament while enacting these particular provisions. The same are reproduced herein below for ready reference:-

¶28

“ Sec. 20. Maintenance of children and aged parents :- (1) Subject to the provisions of this section a Hindu is bound, during his or her lifetime, to maintain his or her legitimate or illegitimate children and his or her aged or infirm parents.

¶29

(2) A legitimate or illegitimate child may claim maintenance from his or her father or mother so long as the child is a minor.

¶30

¶31

(3) The obligation of a person to maintain his or her aged or infirm parent or a daughter who is unmarried extends in so far as the parent or the unmarried daughter, as the case may be, is unable to maintain himself or herself out of his or her own earnings or other property.

¶32

21. Dependants defined – For the purpose of this Chapter “dependants” mean the following relatives of the deceased:-

¶33

(i) his or her father;

¶34

(ii) his or her mother;

¶35

(iii) his widow, so long as she does not remarry;

¶36

(iv) his or her son or the son of his predeceased son or the son of a predeceased son of his predeceased son, so long as he is a minor: provided and to the extent that he is unable to obtain maintenance, in the case of a grandson from his father’s or mother’s estate, and in the case of a great-grandson, from the estate of his father or mother or father’s father or father’s mother;

¶37

(v) his or her unmarried daughter, or the unmarried daughter of his predeceased so or the unmarried daughter of a predeceased son of his predeceased son, so long as she remains unmarried: provided and to the extent that she is unable to obtain maintenance, in the case of a grand-daughter from her father’s or mother’s estate and in the case of a great-grand-daughter from the estate of her father or mother or father’s father or father’s mother;

¶38

(vi) his widowed daughter; provided and to the extent that she is unable to obtain maintenance- (a) from the estate of her husband; or (b) from her son or daughter, if any, or his or her estate; or

¶39

(c) from her father-in-law or his father or the estate of either of them;

¶40

(vii) any widow of his son or of a son of his predeceased son, so long as she does not remarry: provided and to the extent that she is unable to obtain maintenance from her husband’s estate, or from her son daughter, if any, or his or her estate; or in the case of a grandson’s widow, also from her father-in-law’s estate;

¶41

(viii) his or her minor illegitimate son, so long as he remains a minor;

¶42

(ix) his or her illegitimate daughter, so long as she remains unmarried.

¶43

22. Maintenance of dependants -(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), the heirs of a deceased

¶44

¶45

Hindu are bound to maintain the dependants of the deceased bout of the estate inherited by them form the deceased.

¶46

(2) Where a dependant has not obtained, by testamentary or intestate succession, any share in the estate of a Hindu dying after the commencement of this Act, the dependant shall be entitled, subject to the provisions of this Act, to maintenance from those who take the estate.

¶47

(3) The liability of each of the persons who takes the estate shall be in proportion to the value of the share or part of the estate taken by him or her.

¶48

(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) or sub-section (3), no person who is himself or herself a dependant shall be liable to contribute to the maintenance of others, if he or she has obtained a share or part the value of which is, or would, if the liability to contribute were enforced, become less than what would be awarded to him or her by way of maintenance under this Act.”

¶49

5.(b) Thus, a conjoint reading of these three Sections of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 makes it abundant clear that the daughter-in-law in the event of death of her husband when she succeeds the estates of her husband is liable to maintain her parents-in-law. Since in this case the appellant has stepped into the shoes of her deceased-husband by availing rehabilitation assistance appointment, we are of the view that the judgment passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality, hence we are inclined to dismiss the appeal.

¶50

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that quantum of maintenance i.e. Rs.500/- each per month should be enhanced. But we are of the opinion that, it is a fresh cause of action

¶51

¶52

for which the respondents may approach the learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela afresh for enhancement of the maintenance which shall be considered keeping in view the present pay and income of the appellant.

¶53

With such observation, the MATA is dismissed.

¶54

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶55

LCRs. be returned immediately to the lower court by the

¶56

Registry.

¶57

………................ S.K. Mishra, J.

¶58

Dr. A. K. Mishra, J. I agree.

¶59

………………....…….

¶60

Dr. A.K. Mishra, J.

¶61

Orissa High Court, Cuttack.

¶62

Dated the, 23^rd July, 2019/RRJena

Jayanti Devi v. Ramdeo Shaw

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayanti Devi v. Ramdeo Shaw

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Sahu Namkins Vs State

M/S.Bijoy Industries Vs Orissa Industrial Infrastructure Development Corp.

Abhimanyu Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Debaki Nayak Vs Pradeep Ku.Nayak

Kuma Majhi Vs State

Nirakar Patra Vs State