Paramjit Singh Patwalia, J.@mdashThis regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 11.01.2012 passed by learned
Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Ambala whereby petition u/s 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (in short the Act, 1956) filed by
respondent herein has been accepted and against the judgment and decree dated 24.12.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ambala
whereby appeal preferred by the appellant has been dismissed. For convenience sake, reference to parties is being made as per their status in the
petition.
2. The detailed facts are already recapitulated in the judgments of the courts below and are not required to be reproduced. However, the brief
facts are to the effect that the petitioner filed petition seeking maintenance from the respondent under the Act, 1956. It was pleaded that the
petitioner got married to Naresh Kumar Thukral son of Siri Ram Thukral (respondent) about five years ago in accordance with the Hindu rites and
rituals. A female child namely Muskan was born from the said wedlock. She is living with the petitioner. The husband of the petitioner died on
15.08.2005 in a motor vehicle accident. He was doing the business of electrical articles in a rented shop No. 50, M.C. Market, Jagadhari Gate,
Ambala City and was earning Rs. 30,000/- to 35,000/- per month. The respondent had purchased house No. 147, Ram Nagar, Ambala City with
the financial help of said Naresh Kumar (since deceased). After the death of said Naresh Kumar, the respondent started to interfere in the shop of
her husband and refused to maintain the petitioner and her minor daughter. The petitioner has not solemnized second marriage till date. The
petitioner has no source of income to maintain herself as well as her minor daughter. Though, the petitioner along with her daughter has inherited
the shop and business of her husband, but the respondent is pocketing the entire income from the shop. The respondent has good source of
income and has coparcenary movable and immovable property.
3. The respondent resisted the petition and filed written statement taking various preliminary objections. On merits, relationship has been admitted.
It was pleaded that his son (since deceased) was earning Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- per month by repair work from the shop wherein he was a
sub-tenant. In the year 1980, he had purchased the plot for his own residential purposes. At the time of construction of said house in 1984, his son
was aged of 10-12 years, therefore, question of financial help does not arise. It was further pleaded that since said Naresh was doing only the
repair work, therefore, no material was lying in the shop and the shop was lying closed after his death. The petitioner herself had left the
matrimonial home at her own and used to live with her parents even during the life-time of Naresh. The petitioner is also doing the tailoring work
and is also running the beauty parlour, thereby earning sufficient amount to maintain herself. The respondent has never refused to keep and maintain
the respondent and her minor daughter with him. Other averments in petition were denied.
4. Replication was filed controverting the pleas raised in written statement and reiterating the pleas taken in the plaint. On the basis of pleadings of
parties, the Court of first instance framed following issues:
1. Whether the respondent is the father-in-law of the petitioner? OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to seek the maintenance from the respondent u/s 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956?
OPP
3. In case issues No. 1 and 2 are decided in favour of the plaintiff then what is the amount of maintenance to be awarded to the petitioner? OPP
4. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD
5. Relief.
5. After appreciating the evidence, the Court of first instance accepted the petition and directed the respondent to pay Rs. 4,000/- per month as
maintenance from the date of order. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal which has been dismissed by the lower Appellate Court.
Hence, this regular second appeal.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to following substantial questions of law suggested in the grounds of appeal for consideration by
this Court:
(i) Whether the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned courts below are wrong, illegal and are perverse to evidence available on
the file?
(ii) Whether a father-in-law is liable to maintain the widow daughter-in-law even if he is not having any coparcenary or ancestral property in his
possession or even if he has to maintain his wife and unmarried daughter and also to arrange the marriage of a young daughter?
8. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that both the courts below have misread the evidence and findings of both the courts below are
based on surmises and conjectures. Learned counsel has further contended that the appellant can only be made liable to pay the maintenance in
case he has sufficient means to pay it from any coparcenary property in his possession. The appellant is not having any ancestral property with him.
9. I have considered the contentions of learned counsel for the appellant.
10. Admittedly, the petitioner is the daughter-in-law of the respondent. In view of provisions envisaged u/s 19 of the Act, 1956, widow daughter-
in-law can claim the maintenance. Section 19 of the Act, 1956 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 whether 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 her estate.
(2) Any obligation under sub-section 10 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.
11. The said proviso provides that a widowed daughter-in-law can claim maintenance from her father-in-law subject to certain conditions such as
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 from estate of her husband, parents or children. It has also come on evidence that parents of the petitioner have expired. In Balbir
Kaur and Others Vs. Harinder Kaur and Others, it has been observed that widowed daughter-in-law is entitled to claim maintenance even from
the self-acquired property of her father-in-law. It has been held by the courts below that husband of the petitioner was running the electronic shop
and was earning Rs. 30,000/- per month and after his death, the articles were lying in his shop for ale and purchase and this tact has been admitted
by the father-in-law in his cross-examination. Both the courts below have rightly held that the petitioner is entitled to get the maintenance from the
respondent for herself as well as her daughter-Muskan.
12. It has been also rightly held that while granting the maintenance, the discretion is available to the Court in view of Section 19 of the Act and the
said discretion for assessing the maintenance is to be exercised on the basis of the position, condition and circumstances of the parties. The
respondent has admitted that the house and four shops are in his name.
13. Both the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact that the petitioner is entitled to maintenance to the tune of Rs. 4,000/- per
month for her as well as her daughter-Muskan and the same does not seem on higher side. Learned counsel for the appellant could not show that
the said findings are perverse or illegal or based on misreading, non-reading or misappreciation of the material evidence on record. Consequently,
concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the courts below do not warrant interference in regular second appeal. No question of law, muchless
substantial question of taw, as alleged, arises for adjudication in this second appeal.
No other point has been urged.
Dismissed in limine.