Allowed

Rohtash Singh Verma v. Simran @ Savita & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC6 May 2019CR/333/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court disposed of a revision petition regarding maintenance claims. Citing the Supreme Court in Vimalben Ajitbhai Patel, the court opined that claims under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, regarding ancestral property could not be adjudicated in such a petition. The impugned order was set aside.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 9.10.2017 was set aside as it suffered from infirmities.

Rohtash Singh Verma Vs Simran @ Savita & Ors. — Maintenance and Alimony | Punjab & Haryana HC (2019)

¶1

CR-333-2018 (O&M)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶3

CR-333-2018 (O&M). Decided on: May 6, 2019.

¶4

Rohtash Singh Verma

¶5

.. Petitioner

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

Simran @ Savita and others

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶11

¶12

PRESENT Mr.Zorawar Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Rohit Rana, Advocate, for Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶14

AMIT RAWAL, J. (ORAL)

¶15

The short point involved in the present case is whether the widowed daughter-in-law and grand children are entitled to claim maintenance from father-in-law under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, from the property being ancestral.

¶16

¶17

RAJ KUMAR ARORA 2019.05.10 11:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CR-333-2018 (O&M)

¶19

The aforementioned point has already been answered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in Vimalben Ajitbhai Patel Vs. Vatslabeen Ashokbhai Patel and others, 2008 (2) RCR (Crl.) 699 , paras 21 to 24 of which read as under: -

¶20

“21. Maintenance of a married wife, during subsistence of marriage, is on the husband. It is a personal obligation. The obligation to maintain a daughter-in-law arises only when the husband has died. Such an obligation can also be met from the properties of which the husband is a co-sharer and not otherwise. For invoking the said provision, the husband must have a share in the property. The property in the name of the mother-in-law can neither be a subject matter of attachment nor during the life time of the husband, his personal liability to maintain his wife can be directed to be enforced against such property.

¶21

22. Wholly un-contentious issues have been raised before us on behalf of Sonalben (wife). It is well settled that apparent state of affairs of state shall be taken a real state of affairs. It is not for an owner of the property to establish that it is his self-acquired property and the onus would be on the one, who pleads contra. Sonalben might be entitled to maintenance from her husband. An order of maintenance might have been passed but in view of the settled legal position, the decree, if any, must be executed against her husband and only his properties could be attached therefor but not of her mother-in-law.

¶22

23. Sections 4 and 28 of the Hindu Adoptions and

¶23

¶24

RAJ KUMAR ARORA 2019.05.10 11:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

CR-333-2018 (O&M)

¶26

Maintenance Act read as under :- "4. Overriding effect of Act Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act,(a) any text, rule or interpretation of Hindu law or any custom or usage as part of that law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall cease to have effect with respect to any matter for which provision is made in this Act; (b) any other law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall cease to apply to Hindus insofar as it is inconsistent with any of the provisions contained in this Act. 28. Effect of transfer of property on right to maintenance Where a dependant has a right to receive maintenance out of an estate, and such estate or any part thereof is transferred, the right to receive maintenance may be enforced against the transferee if the transferee has notice of the right or if the transfer is gratuitous; but not against the transferee for consideration and without notice of the right."

¶27

24. Section 4 provides for a non obstante clause. In terms of the said provision itself any obligation on the part of in-laws in terms of any text, rule or interpretation of Hindu Law or any custom or usage as part of law before the commencement of the Act, are no longer valid. In view of the non obstante clause contained in Section 4, the provisions of the Act alone are applicable. Sections 18 and 19 prescribe the statutory liabilities in regard to maintenance of wife by her husband and only on his death upon the father-in-law, Mother-in-law, thus, cannot be fastened with any legal liability to maintain her daughter-in-law from her own property or otherwise.”

¶28

¶29

RAJ KUMAR ARORA 2019.05.10 11:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶30

CR-333-2018 (O&M)

¶31

At this stage, counsel for the respondents submits that there is specific allegation that the property was purchased by the father-inlaw out of the funds of the ancestral property.

¶32

I am afraid that the above mentioned plea cannot be adjudicated in a petition under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. The remedy lies somewhere else. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 9.10.2017 (Annexure P1) is not sustainable as the same suffers from infirmities and thus, the same is set aside.

¶33

` The revision petition stands allowed accordingly.

¶34

May 6, 2019. (AMIT RAWAL) raj arora JUDGE Whether speaking / reasoned Yes / No Whether reportable Yes / No

¶35

¶36

RAJ KUMAR ARORA 2019.05.10 11:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Rohtash Singh Verma v. Simran @ Savita & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohtash Singh Verma v. Simran @ Savita & Ors.

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

Haneefa @ Nifo Vs General Public & Anr.

Haneefa @ Nifo Vs General Public & Anr.

Ashok Kumar Vs Pushpinder Singh and Others

Harnam Singh & Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Estate Officer and Another Vs Satish Kumar and Others

Manav Sharma Vs Kangna Sharma