Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jit Singh vs Gurmeet Kaur on 15 December, 1998
Equivalent citations: II(1999)DMC671
JUDGMENT V.K. Jhanji, J.
1. This is defendant's second appeal directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, whereby on appeal preferred by the plaintiff, judgment and decree of the Trial Court has been set aside and suit of plaintiff partly decreed.
2. Plaintiff being the daughter-in-law, on the death of her husband, filed suit for grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month against the appellant and for creating charge of the maintenance on the agricultural land to the extent of 2/3rd share of the defendant in land measuring 39 bighas 14 biswas situated in the revenue estate of Village Hassanpur, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala, as per jamabandi for the year 1991-92. Upon contest, Trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that plaintiff is able to get maintenance from the estate of her father and, thus, is not entitled to get any maintenance allowance from her father-in-law. In appeal, however, the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and decreed the suit. Consequently, respondent has been held entitled to Rs. 400/- per month from the appellant as maintenance allowance and the maintenance allowance has been made a charge on l/3rd share of the suit land which stands in the name of appellant.
3. In this second appeal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant has contended that respondent is staying with her father who owns substantial property and, therefore, appellant being the father-in-law is not under a legal obligation to maintain his daughter-in-law. In this regard reference has been made to proviso to Section 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (in short the Act).
4. After hearing the Counsel and going through the record, I do not find any merit in this appeal. Section 19 of the Act governs rights of widowed daughter-in- law to maintenance from her father-in-law after the death of her husband. It reads as under :
"19. Maintenance of widowed daughter-in-law -
(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 -
(a) from the estate of her husband or her father or mother, or
(b) from her son or daughter, if any, or his or (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."
5. A reading of the above makes it clear that the widowed daughter-in-law can claim maintenance from her father-in-law only where she is unable to maintain herself out of her property or out of estate of her husband, father, mother, son or daughter. It is also provided that father-in-law shall be under no obligation to maintain his daughter-in-law except in cases where there is some ancestral or co-parcenary property in his possession from which daughter-in-law has not obtained any share.
6. First Appellate Court on appreciation of evidence brought on record has recorded a firm finding of fact that appellant is in possession of co-parcenary property in which daughter-in-law has not obtained any share. Proviso (a) to Section 19 of the Act came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in Jai Kaur v. Pala Singh, AIR 1961 Punjab 391. It has been ruled therein that expression 'obtain maintenance from her father or mother' does not merely mean that the widow is somehow managing to live with or is being maintained by her father or mother. There must be a legal right in the widowed daughter to demand maintenance from her father or mother or from their estate, as the case may be, and she must in assertion of that right be able to obtain maintenance. It is only when she can obtain maintenance in pursuance of a lawful right that the operation of the proviso can be said to be attracted. In this case, Counsel for the appellant was unable to cite any provision of law making it obligatory for the father to maintain his widowed daughter. This being the position, I am of the view that the first Appellate Court has rightly awarded maintenance out of the income of co-parcenary property held by the appellant. Accordingly, no case for interference in second appeal is made out.
7. Consequently, the appeal fails, it is accordingly dismissed.