Widowed Daughter-In-Law Can Seek Maintenance From From Father-In-Law & Brother-In-Law: Jharkhand High Court
The Jharkhand Excessive Court docket has dominated {that a} widowed daughter-in-law and her minor youngsters are entitled to say upkeep from her father-in-law and brother-in-law underneath Sections 19 and 22 of the Hindu Adoptions and Upkeep Act, 1956 (HAMA), supplied they’re unable to take care of themselves and the in-laws are in possession of coparcenary property.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Rajesh Kumar thus dismissed the Enchantment most popular by the father-in-law and brother-in-law in opposition to a household court docket directing them to pay a month-to-month upkeep of ₹3000 to the widow, and ₹1000 every to her two minor youngsters. It held,
“Household Court docket has appreciated each doc and testimonies of witnesses of either side and has categorically noticed that the agricultural land among the many petitioners (respondents herein) and the respondents (appellants herein) haven’t been partitioned and the share of the husband of the petitioner no.1 (respondent no.1 herein) within the agricultural land can also be underneath the possession and occupation of the respondents (appellants herein) however the petitioners will not be being maintained by the respondents and due to this fact, by advantage of Part-19 and 22 of the Hindu Adoption and Upkeep Act 1956, the petitioners are entitled to the upkeep from the respondents.”
As per the factual matrix of the case, the widow and her youngsters have been residing at her parental house after being turned out of her matrimonial house. The trial court docket discovered that she had no supply of earnings and that the respondents have been in possession of joint agricultural land which had not been partitioned. Allegedly, the respondents weren’t sustaining the widow and her youngsters, regardless of having the means to take action.
The appellants argued that the widow had obtained LIC proceeds, that one in all them was a disabled aged individual and the opposite a pupil, and that they have been prepared to permit the petitioners to remain within the matrimonial home. Additionally they challenged the applicability of Sections 19 and 22 of the Act, asserting that the Household Court docket had misconstrued the provisions.
The Excessive Court docket rejected these contentions whereas holding that the widow had pleaded and proved her incapability to take care of herself and that different statutory circumstances have been happy. The Court docket famous,
“we discover that although the widowed/ petitioner (respondent no.1 herein) has pleaded and proved that she is unable to take care of herself out of her personal incomes or different property, there’s particular assertion to meet statutory circumstances enumerated in clause (a) & (b) are proviso to sub-section (1) of Part 19 of the Act of 1956. There’s additionally assertion of witnesses which corroborates that she is unable to acquire upkeep from her father or mom since her father isn’t incomes.”
Accordingly, the attraction was dismissed.
Case Title: Surendra Das & Anr. v. Anita Das & Ors.
Case No.: First Enchantment No. 307 of 2023
