The Allahabad High Court while allowing an appeal observed that it is not a mandatory condition of law that for a daughter-in-law to claim maintenance, she must first agree to live at her matrimonial home.
The Division Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh passed this order while hearing an appeal filed by Shree Rajpati.
The appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 arising from the order dated 22.10.2023 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Agra in Original Suit.
By that order, with reference to Section 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, the trial court has awarded monthly maintenance at the rate Rs 3,000 per month in favour of the respondent and against the appellant, who is father-in-law of the respondent.
The Court noted that the husband of the respondent was working as daily wage employee of the Irrigation Department. He was murdered on 20.11.1999. The respondent has not been remarried. She also claims to have no source of survival. On the other hand, she pleaded that the amount Rs 80,000 was paid to the appellant by the irrigation department towards terminal dues arising from the death of his son (husband of the respondent).
It is her further allegation that the appellant had misappropriated that amount. She claims that the appellant has sufficient agricultural holding to which her husband may have have remained entitled, had he been alive. Arising therefrom, claim has been made for the maintenance amount to be paid to the respondent. The appellant objected that no amount was received by him towards terminal dues arising from the death of his son. In fact, the appellant claims that he made a term deposit of Rs 20,000 in favour of the respondent.
Moreover, the respondent refused to live in her matrimonial home i.e to live with her matrimonial family. In fact, she went back to her parental family. Then, she engaged as a private household.
Also, according to the appellant, she is also gainfully employed at K.P.M Vidyalaya, Kheragarh Rathore Jaitpur Kalan, District Agra.
The Court further noted,
On such objection, the claim for award of maintenance is resisted. The trial court has found that the amount Rs 80,000 was paid to the appellant towards terminal dues arising from the death of his son. It has been further observed that the said money was not paid to the respondent. Thereafter, trial court has disbelieved the claim set up by the appellant that the respondent was remarried to the said Jandail Singh and also disbelieved that the respondent was gainfully employed.
In such fact, the trial court has awarded monthly maintenance at the rate Rs 3,000 per month to the respondent from the date of impugned order i.e 22.10.2013. Upon challenge raised in this appeal, on 5.12.2013, the appeal was entertained and interim order was passed providing for payment of interim maintenance at the rate Rs 1,000 per month. On query made, counsel for the appellant states, the amount is being paid.
The Court observed,
Having heard counsel for the appellant and having perused the record, it is true that there was no evidence to accept the contention of the respondent that the appellant had misappropriated the amount Rs 80,000. The case set up by the respondent in her maintenance application was disputed by the appellant at the first stage itself i.e. at the stage of filing objections. The claim made by the respondent in that regard was pressed only on the strength of oral evidence. No documentary evidence was filed by either party, in that regard.
At the same time, there is nothing to doubt the claim of the appellant that he had made a fixed deposit of Rs 20,000, in favour of the respondent.
Thereafter, there is no evidence as may have made the court below reach a conclusion or may have persuaded us to reach a conclusion that the appellant was in receipt of Rs 80,000 paid by way of terminal dues to him.
Submission of the counsel for the appellant that the respondent was remarried to Jandail Singh or she was living in relationship with him or she was gainfully employed as ‘Cook’ at K.P.M Vidyalaya, Kheragarh Rathore Jaitpur Kalan, District Agra, also is unbelievable. The trial court has disbelieved the contention made by learned counsel for the appellant in that regard for cogent reasons. Neither the factum of remarriage was proved nor it was admitted. Both the respondent and Jandail Singh were examined. They disputed the claim of their marriage. No doubt emerged in their cross-examination as to that fact as may have persuaded us to believe the factum of remarriage. Once alleged that fact ought to have been proven on the strength of cogent material or evidence. That not done, the objection made by the appellant was rightly rejected. As to the gainful employment of the respondent as ‘Cook’ at K.P.M Vidyalaya, Kheragarh Rathore Jaitpur Kalan, District Agra, the trial court has rightly observed that the document described as certificate issued by the Principal of that college was not proven by the said Principle.
In any case, having looked at the document, the trial court is further right in it’s conclusion that that certificate was a mute document inasmuch as it did not disclose the monthly income or remuneration payable to the respondent, even if it were to be accepted that she was engaged as ‘Cook’ in the said educational institution.
The Court further observed that,
As to the further submission that the appellant is 70 years old and is himself dependent on his sons, we find, in the first place, by the interim order, sufficient relief had been granted to the appellant and the award of monthly maintenance had been reduced to a reasonable amount Rs 1,000 per month. Second, it has remained undisputed to the appellant that he has agricultural holding in his name measuring 0.379 hectare. Also, it is not disputed to the appellant that the respondent was duly married to his deceased son.
Insofar as further submission has been advanced that the respondent has a house given to her by Jandail Singh, whatever observations exist in the impugned order, we do not find any support from the affidavit to Jandail Singh. Jandail Singh is shown to have disputed the fact that the respondent is living with him. He has clearly stated that she is living with her father.
“Seen in that light, the respondent is entitled to the claim of maintenance from the appellant by virtue of Section 19 of the Act. As to the amount of maintenance, the principle contained in Section 23 of the Act is to be considered. The fact that the widowed daughter-in-law of the appellant was living separately that too with her parent, may not be a circumstance as may disentitle her to claim maintenance from her father-in-law, in entirety. Merely because the lady may have made that choice may neither lead us to the conclusion that she had separated from her matrimonial home without reasonable cause nor that she would have sufficient means to survive on her own. We find, the terms of the interim order passed in these proceedings, do not call for any interference,” the Court also observed while allowing the appeal.