Wife has the Right to Claim Maintenance from the Estate Inherited by the Father – In – Law: Bombay High Court
 A widow has every right to claim maintenance from the estate inherited by her father-in-law held by Hon’ble Justice Nitin W Sambre in the case of Sardool Singh Sucha Singh Matharoo V. Harneet Kaur [Writ Petition (S.T.) No. 4054 of 2020] observed that u/s 19 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, the widow has every right to claim maintenance from the estate inherited by the father-in-law. The respondent was married to the late son of the petitioner and had a son. Both of the respondent widow’s parents passed away and she had no independent source of earning and the widow and her son are completely dependent on the earnings of the petitioner father-in-law. She subsequently filed proceedings under Section 19 and 22 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 seeking grant of maintenance of Rs. 1.5 lakh per month for herself and Rs. 50,000 for son, before the family court, the court awarded a maintenance of Rs. 40,000 and Rs. 30,000 per month, which was challenged by the petitioner. It was observed that “At the outset, it is required to be submitted that the plain reading of Section 19 of the Act contemplates that the respondents have every right to claim the maintenance after the death of husband from the estate inherited by her father-in-law i.e. the present petitioner. That proviso to Sub-Section (1) of Section 19 contemplates that the respondent has to demonstrate that she is unable to maintain herself. It is in this eventuality she can claim maintenance from the estate of her husband, still fact remains that the said burden can be discharged by respondent no.1 at an appropriate stage. The object with which the provision is made in the statute book for grant of interim maintenance cannot be ignored.” It was further observed by the Hon’ble Court “That being so, it cannot be at this stage presumed that the maintenance is disproportionate to the legal source of income of the petitioner. Rather the maintenance awarded to respondent no.1 to the tune of Rs.40, 000/- and to respondent no.2, grandson of Rs.30, 000/- appears to be justified, considering the income drawn by the Petitioner as reflected in the hereinabove.” Click here to read the judgement
1 wpst 4054.2020.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITIONNO.4054 OF 2020 Sardool Singh Sucha Singh Vs …. Petitioner Harneet Kaur widow of Bhupinder Singh Matharoo & Anr. Mr. Bipin Joshi a w Mr. Prayag Joshi for Petitioner Mr. G.L. Bajaj for Respondent Coram : NITIN W. SAMBRE J Date : 7th September 2020 Heard the respective counsel The petitioner takes an exception to the order dated 28th January 2020 passed by the Family Court No. 3 Bandra Mumbai below Exhibit 15 an application for grant of interim maintenance in Petition No. C 618 The facts necessary for deciding the present petition are as 1 wpst 4054.2020.doc The petitioner was blessed with two sons. Late Bhupinder who was married to respondent no. 1 on 12th December 2004 and died on 21st May 2015. Respondent no.2 son was born out of the above marriage. The mother of respondent no.1 died in the year 2016 whereas her father died in February 2017. It is her case that she has no independent source of earning and she and her son are completely dependent on the earnings of the petitioner. It is in this background respondent no.1 preferred the proceedings under Sections 19 and 22 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956with a prayer for grant of maintenance of Rs.1 50 000 per month to petitioner no.1 and Rs.50 000 to petitioner no.2 to the petition before the Family Court The claim was resisted by the present petitioner original respondent thereby alleging that apart from the fact that the present 1 wpst 4054.2020.doc petitioner is paying maintenance to the respondents and has provided accommodation an expenses of Rs.90 000 are incurred by the petitioner so as to meet day to day requirement educational expenses etc.. The break up to that effect has been given in the reply filed to the main petition before the Family Court Since the respondent no.1 claimed to have neglected to maintain by the petitioner the application Exhibit 15 seeking interim maintenance under Section 19 of the Act came to be moved claiming Rs.1 00 000 per month for respondent no.1 and Rs.50 000 per month to respondent no.2 son Vide impugned order dated 28th January 2020 the Family Court has allowed the prayer partly and granted maintenance of Rs.40 000 per month to respondent no.1 whereas Rs.30 000 per month to respondent no.2. As such this petition Learned counsel for the petitioner original respondent would invite attention of this Court to the provisions of Section 19 1 wpst 4054.2020.doc Proviso to Sub Section(2) of the Act so as to claim that the maintenance ought to have been claimed by the respondent no.1 only after demonstrating that she was unable to maintain herself from her own earnings or from the estate of her parents Shri. Joshi learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner would urge that the aforesaid legal provision is ignored by the Court below while allowing the application and that being so the order goes contrary to the provisions of Section 19 of the Act Further submission is even if presuming that the respondents are entitled for maintenance still fact remains that exorbitant maintenance is awarded as the Court below have failed to consider the liability of the petitioner to maintain himself who was a cancer patient his aged wife his other son and his family. Shri. Joshi would also invite attention of this Court to the fact that the respondents are provided with accommodation in the house owned by the petitioner. According to Shri. Joshi the petitioner 1 wpst 4054.2020.doc is incurring expenses about Rs.95 000 per month on the respondents Shri. Joshi then would urge that the award of maintenance is as such completely disproportionate to the known source of income of the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner repayment of bank loan is already overdue and that being so the order impugned is liable to be quashed and set aside By inviting attention of this Court on the judgement as reported in BCRVolume 5 page 441 in the case of Vimlaben Ajitbhai Patel Vs. Vatslaben Ashokbhai Patil & Ors. Shri. Joshi has tried to substantiate his submissions that the respondent no.1 has not discharged his initial burden contemplated under the proviso to Section 19 of the Act and further claimed that the maintenance ought not to have been awarded Per contra Shri. Bajaj learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order and and would urge that the order is based on the admissions as are traced in the written statement as to income of the petitioner. Shri. Bajaj would also rely on the Income tax return submitted by the petitioner for the assessment year 2018 2019 1 wpst 4054.2020.doc Considered rival submissions At the outset it is required to be submitted that the plain reading of Section 19 of the Act contemplates that the respondents have every right to claim the maintenance after the death of husband from the estate inherited by her father in law i.e. the present petitioner That proviso to Sub Sectionof Section 19 contemplates that the respondent has to demonstrate that she on her is unable to maintain herself. It is in this eventuality she can claim maintenance from the estate of her husband still fact remains that the said burden can be discharged by respondent no.1 at an appropriate stage. The object with which the provision is made in the statute book for grant of interim maintenance cannot be ignored. At this stage what was required to be appreciated by the Court below and rightly so appreciated by the Family Court in the impugned order is whether there was neglect to maintain and whether the respondents are entitled for maintenance from the petitioner in view of Section 19 of the Act. 1 wpst 4054.2020.doc The Family Court has relied on the statement made in the written statement by the present petitioner that the income per month of the petitioner from the HUF property is Rs.1 28 000 Apart from above the Court cannot be oblivious to the fact that the income of the petitioner for the assessment year 2018 2019 as was reflected in the income tax return was Rs 74 87 007 That being so it cannot be at this stage presumed that the maintenance is disproportionate to the legal source of income of the petitioner. Rather the maintenance awarded to the respondent no.1 to the tune of Rs.40 000 and to respondent no.2 grandson of Rs.30 000 appears to be justified considering the income drawn by the Petitioner as reflected in the hereinabove Apart from above this Court cannot see any material illegalities so as to infer that the order impugned runs contrary to the scheme of Section 19 of the Act. That being so no case for interference is made out. Petition fails dismissed 1 wpst 4054.2020.doc Needless to clarify that the observations made hereinabove are confined to the extent of adjudicating the rights of respondent no.1 for grant of interim maintenance. While deciding final proceedings the Court shall not be influenced by the findings recorded hereinabove as same be decided on its own merits. ( NITIN W. SAMBRE J. 