‘Not mandatory that for a daughter-in-law to claim maintenance, she must first agree to live at her matrimonial home’, Read Judgment

The Allahabad High Court, in an appeal challenging the order of maintenance, 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 and 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 of her own.

Brief Facts:

The present appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the order passed by the family court, wherein the trial court has awarded monthly maintenance at the rate Rs. 3,000/- per month in favour of the respondent and against the present appellant, who is father-in-law of the respondent.

Contentions of the Appellant:

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the respondent was gainfully employed and that he had made a deposit of Rs. 20000 in her account. Further, it was stated that he had not received any part from the terminal dues.

Observations of the Court:

The court observed that documentary evidence was filed to show that the respondent had misappropriated the terminal dues, only oral averments were made, and further, the factum of remarriage and gainful employment as claimed by the appellant was never proved by him by leading any evidence in support of his claim.

The court further stated 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 and in the societal context in which law must be applied, it is not uncommon for widowed ladies to live with her parents, for varied reasons and circumstances and 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 of her own.

The decision of the Court:

The court partly allowed the appeal and reduced the amount of maintenance to Rs. 1,000/- per month.

Case Title: Shree Rajpati vs. Smt. Bhuri Devi

Coram: Hon’ble Mr Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Hon’ble Mr Justice Donadi Ramesh

Case No.: First Appeal No. - 696 of 2013

Advocate for the Applicant: J.C Sharma, Ravindra Kumar Pandey

Advocate for the Respondent: Hitesh Pachori

Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com