Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.34 seconds)The Hindu Adoptions And Maintenance Act, 1956
Section 4 in The Hindu Adoptions And Maintenance Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Bhagirathibai Bhalchandra Narayan vs Dwarkabai Shankar Baji on 30 July, 1932
8. The judgment of Full Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court on which Shri Deopujari, learned Counsel has placed strong reliance considers the situation in which father-in-law had died in 1954 and his son had pre-deceased him. In this background the question of maintenance to widow of such pre-deceased son arose and the Full Bench has found that provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, were only prospective in operation and were not retrospective and did not take away right of such widow already vested before commencement of codified enactment. It further found that there was moral duty on father-in-law to maintain the widowed daughter-in-law and her heir out of the property he inherits or from self acquired property. The perusal of judgment of this Court in the case of Bhagirathibai v. Dwarkabai, again shows that such a right of daughter-in-law against ancestral property or self acquired property of her father in-law under uncodified law is also recognized by the High Court but with a rider added that such self acquired property should not have been disposed of by father-in-law by way of gift. If it was not so disposed of, the right was held to be available against such self acquired property inherited by heirs of father-in-law also. This rider recognised by this High Court is not accepted to be correct in para 65 & 66 of its judgement by Hon. Andhra Pradesh High Court. But then these rulings do not support the stand of Appellant that even under codified law the widowed daughter in law has such entitlement. The contention that Full Bench has not followed Bombay decision is therefore not relevant for deciding the controversy before me. In any case, in present matter, the husband of Venubai by name Wasudeo has expired on 7.8.1976 i.e. well after coming into force the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.
T.A. Lakshmi Narasamba vs T. Sundaramma And Ors. on 6 November, 1980
135, holding that there is no such obligation upon father-in-law under uncodified Hindu Law has not been followed and accepted to be good by Full Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in T.A. Lakshmi Narasamba v. T. Sundaramma.
Balbir Kaur And Ors. vs Harinder Kaur And Ors. on 26 September, 2002
9. The reliance by Shri Deopujari, learned Counsel for the appellants on judgment of Hon.ble Punjab & Haryana High Court Balbir Kaur v. Harinder Kaur, (supra) to show that right of maintenance under Section 19 includes provision for residence and widowed daughter in law is entitled to claim right of maintenance against self acquired property of father-in-law in his hand or in the hands of his heirs under Section 19 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, now needs to be considered. The Hon. Single Judge there has in para 14 observed that:
The Hindu Women's Rights To Property Act, 1937
Gopal Chandra Pal vs Kadambini Dasi And Ors. on 16 June, 1923
In Gopal Chandra Pal v. Kadambini Dasi , a Division Bench of the Calcutta High....
Section 20 in The Hindu Adoptions And Maintenance Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Master Daljit Singh & Ors. vs S. Dara Singh & Ors. on 31 January, 2000
He fairly points out that the learned Single judge of Delhi High Court in the case of Daljit Singh v. S. Dara Singh reported at , held that the order for interim maintenance cannot be passed against father-in-law in the absence of evidence showing coparcenary property in his hands.