Jharkhand High Court
Surendra Das vs Anita Das on 10 June, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Rajesh Kumar
2025:JHHC:15002-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
First Appeal No.307 of 2023
-----
1. Surendra Das, aged about 67 years, son of late Moti Das
2. Uttam Kumar Das, aged about 33 years, son of Surendra Das,
Both are residents of Village-Bariyarbandhi, PO-Devsangh, PS-
Deoghar, District-Deoghar, Jharkhand
..... ... Respondents/Appellants
Versus
1. Anita Das, wife of late Jyotish Kumar Das, daughter of Sri Kriplani
Das.
2. Ritesh Kumar, son of Anita Das and late Jyotish Kumar Das
3. Sonam Kumari, daughter of Anita Das and late Jyotish Kumar Das.
Sl. Nos. 2 and 3 both are minors, being represented through their
natural guardian/mother Anita Das (respondent no.1).
All are resident of Village-Bariyarbandhi, PO-Devsangh, PS-
Deoghar, District-Deoghar, Jharkhand. Presently residing at New
Colony, Pokhartalla, Mihijam, PO & PS-Mihijam, District-Jamtara,
Jharkhand ...... Petitioners/Respondents
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
-------
For the Appellants : Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Advocate
For the Respondents : ..............
------
C.A.V on 05.05.2025 Pronounced on 10/06/2025
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The instant appeal under section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act,
1984 is directed against the order dated 11.09.2023 passed in Original
Maintenance Case No.58 of 2022 by the learned Principal Judge, Family
Court, Jamtara (in short-Family Judge) whereby and whereunder the
appellants herein are directed to pay amount of Rs.3000/- per month to
the respondent no.1 and Rs.1000/- per month each to the minor children,
( the respondent nos.2 and 3 herein) as maintenance allowance from the
date of filing of Original Maintenance Case No.58 of 2022.
2025:JHHC:15002-DB
Factual Matrix
2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the plaint
having been recorded by the learned Family Judge, needs to be referred
herein as:
(i) The case of the petitioners (respondents herein) in nutshell
is that both the parties are Hindus. The petitioner no. 1-
Anita Das (respondent no.1 herein) is the legally married
wife of late Jyotish Kumar Das. Her marriage with the
said Jyotish Kumar Das was solemnized in the year 2007
as per Hindu Rites and Customs and out of their wedlock
two children were born, the first one is male child aged
about 13 years, namely, Ritesh Kumar and second one is a
female child, namely, Sonam kumari aged about 3 years.
(ii) The respondent no.1(appellant no.1) is the father-in-law
of the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2(appellant
no.2 herein) is her devar. All the respondents and his
other family members are living in the same house in joint
mess. After the marriage the petitioner no.1 went to her
sasural at village Bariarbandhi and started residing there.
She was kept well for one month but thereafter the
respondent started demanding Rs. 50 thousand from the
petitioner no.1 for purchasing motorcycle. On information
the father of the petitioner no.1 gave Rs. 25 thousand and
requested to keep her well. Two years later they again
started torturing the petitioner no.1 by demanding Rs. 1
2025:JHHC:15002-DB
lac and when the demand was not fulfilled the respondent
started torturing her in various ways.
(iii) Unfortunately, on 24.01.2022 the husband of the
petitioner no.1 died and thereafter the respondents became
more violent and started treating the petitioner like maid
servant. They neither provided proper food nor medicine.
The husband of the petitioner no.1 had constructed two
bed rooms, one varandah, attached staircase and toilet
bathroom for the petitioner no.1 who was living there but
after the death of her husband the respondents ousted her
from that house and in order to grab the entire property of
her husband they started creating trouble. They
dishonestly took away her passbook, Adhaar card, PAN
card, death certificate of her husband kept in almirah.
When the petitioner objected the same the respondents
mercilessly assaulted her on 06.05.2022 at about 8:00 PM
and turned her out with both the minor children from their
house.
(iv) Thereafter, the petitioner no.1 came in her father's house
at New Colony, Pokhartalla, Mihijam and narrated the
entire incident to her family members. The father of the
petitioner and villagers tried to settle the matter but the
respondent did not come for settlement and thereafter the
petitioner no.1 filed a complaint case before the Court of
SDJM, Jamtara bearing PCR Case No. 802 of 2022 under
sections 323, 498A, 379, 504, 506/34 of the IPC which is
2025:JHHC:15002-DB
still pending. The respondents are mason of wall putty and
earn Rs. 1000/- per day from the same. The petitioner no.
1 and the respondents have joint household properties at
Barirbandhi and the respondents have captured the same
and turned out the petitioners from their house. They have
also captured all landed properties of mouza Bariarbandhi,
Jogidih, Dangar and Koriyasa and they produce 500
mounds of paddy per years valued at Rs. 2 lac. The
respondents are not returning her husband's passbooks,
Adhaar card, PAN Card, death certificate, medical
certificate, L.I.C paper etc. They are not maintaining the
petitioner and her children, hence, she is entitled to get
maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month for herself and Rs.
5000/- per month each for the maintenance of her both
minor children.
3. It is evident from the factual aspect as narrated hereinabove that
the petitioner no.1 is living with her minor children in her maike (parental
house) after death of her husband and she is facing difficulty in
maintaining herself as well as her two minor children.
4. In support of her case, altogether five witnesses have been
examined on behalf of the respondents-petitioner. The petitioner no.1
(respondent no.1 herein) has examined herself as PW1 and produced
some documents to show that the appellants herein have sufficient
income to pay maintenance to her and her minor children which are
Ext.1-Internet copy of Khatian of Khata No.63, Ext.2-attested copy of
2025:JHHC:15002-DB
Jamabandi No.62, Ext.1/2, attested copy of Jamabandi No.17 and
Ext.1/3-Attested copy of Jamabandi No.17 and 24.
5. On the other hand, the appellants have examined three
witnesses, the appellant no.1 has examined himself as DW3 and also
produced some documents to rebut the case of the petitioner no.1 which
have been marked "X" and 'X/1' for identification.
6. On the basis of the testimony of the witnesses and after
considering the relevant documents, the learned Family Judge has
allowed the maintenance case and ordered the respondents(appellant
herein) to pay an amount of Rs.3000/- per month to the petitioner no.1
and Rs.1000/- per month each to the minor children as maintenance
allowance from the date of filing of Original Maintenance Case No.58 of
2022.
7. The said order has been challenged by the appellants-
respondents by filing the instant appeal.
Argument on behalf of the appellants:
8. On behalf of the appellants, the following grounds have been
taken to assail the impugned order:
(i) It has been contended that the order impugned is illegal
and suffers from an error and, as such, is liable to be set
aside.
(ii) It has been contended that the learned trial Court has
failed to consider the evidence adduced by the appellants
and viewed the case from a wrong angle of vision and
thereby gave much weightage upon the evidence adduced
2025:JHHC:15002-DB
by the petitioners, and as such, the impugned judgment is
fit to be set aside.
(iii) It has been contended that the learned trial Court has
ignored and overlooked the factual aspect of the case
while passing the impugned order.
(iv) It has been contended that the learned trial Court has
failed to consider that the petitioners are not entitled for
maintenance from the appellants under Section 19 and 22
of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.
(v) It has been contended that the learned trial Court has
failed to appreciate that the appellant no.2 is not entitled
to pay any maintenance to the respondents as per Section
19 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.
(vi) It has been contended that the learned trial Court
before passing the impugned order while allowing the
maintenance in favour of the petitioners has failed to
appreciate the factual aspect that the appellant
no.1 is an old and physically handicapped person who is
not in a position to pay any maintenance.
(vii) It has been contended that the learned trial Court has
failed to appreciate the evidence of DW-3 Surendra Das
(appellant no.1 herein) with regard to the amount received
in the account as well as the amount of L.I.C before
passing the impugned order.
(viii) It has been contended that the learned trial Court has
failed to appreciate that the appellant no.1 has no such
2025:JHHC:15002-DB
income as alleged by the respondent no.1 and is not in a
position to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- to the
petitioners.
(ix) It has been contended that the learned trial Court has
failed to appreciate that the appellants were always ready
and willing to provide all necessary amenities to the
petitioners for their stay in their house.
(x) It has been contended that the learned trial Court has
failed to appreciate that the petitioners had lodged the
present case in order to harass and blackmail the
appellants, who are father-in-law and younger brother-in-
law of the petitioner no.1 (respondent no.1 herein).
(xi) It has been contended that the learned trial Court has
failed to appreciate that the lands are
jointly recorded in the name of Bhikhu Mahra, Etwari
Mahra and Harkhu Mahra and the income from the share
of the appellants is not sufficient to provide monthly
maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- to the petitioners.
(xii) It has been contended that the learned trial Court has
failed to appreciate that the appellants are always ready to
settle the dispute with the petitioners.
(xiii) It has been contended that the learned trial Court has
failed to consider the evidence of the witnesses as well as
the documents produced by the appellants before passing
the impugned order.
2025:JHHC:15002-DB
(xiv) It has been contended that the learned trial Court has
failed to consider that there are major and vital
contradiction in the evidence of the petitioners and as
such, they are not entitled for any maintenance.
(xv) It has been contended that the learned trial Court has
misconstrued the provisions of Section 19 and 22 of the
Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act before passing the
impugned order and the impugned order was passed
without properly assessing the income of the appellants
from the assets.
9. The learned counsel based upon the aforesaid ground has
submitted that the impugned order, therefore, suffers from an error and,
as such, not sustainable in the eyes of law.
Analysis:
10. It needs to refer herein that notices were sent to the petitioners
(respondent nos.1 to 3 herein) vide order dated 13.12.2024 passed by a
co-ordinate Bench of this Court. It appears from the service report that
the notices have duly been served upon the petitioner no.1 (respondent
no.1 herein) who herself has received the notice on behalf of herself as
well as her minor children but inspite of that she did not choose to appear
before this Court.
11. We have heard the learned counsels appearing for the appellants,
gone through the impugned order, the testimonies of the witnesses
recorded and the documents exhibited therein.
12. In the proceeding before the learned Family Judge, upon
issuance of notice to the appellants herein they were appeared in the
2025:JHHC:15002-DB
proceeding and filed a show-cause denying all the allegations and the
claim made by the petitioner no.1 for maintenance of herself as well as for
her minor children.
13. In her examination-in-chief on oath, the widow/petitioner no.1
has deposed about the factum of marriage with the son of the appellant
no.1 and out of the said wedlock birth of two minor children. She has
stated that after one month of the marriage her in-laws started demanding
an amount of Rs.50,000/- for purchase of motorcycle but her father gave
them Rs.25,000/- at that time. Thereafter she stayed in her sasural for
about two years but soon after that they again started demanding Rs. One
lac and non-fulfillment of the same the petitioner no.1 was subjected to
torture. In the meantime, two children were born from the wedlock one
son, namely, Ritesh Kumar aged about 13 years and second a daughter,
namely, Sonam Kumari, aged about 3 ½ years. She has deposed that her
husband died on 24.01.2022 and thereafter the appellants started torturing
her. She deposed that her husband in his life time had constructed a house
of two bed rooms, varandah, toilet and bathroom in which she was
residing but after his death, the appellants with a view to grab the entire
property captured the said house and they compelled her to leave the
house with her minor children. Thereafter, she left her matrimonial house
and came to her father's house along with the minor children. Her father
and other family members tried their level best to pacify the matter but the
appellants did not agree for the same due to which she has filed a
complaint case being PCR Case No.802 of 2022 under sections 323,
498A, 379, 504, 506/34 of the IPC against the appellants which is
pending.
2025:JHHC:15002-DB
She has deposed that she has no source of income to maintain
herself and her minor children whereas the appellants are having
sufficient income as the appellant no.1 is doing the work of a mason and
he earns Rs.1000/- per day. Besides, the appellants produce 500 mounds
of paddy from their agricultural field which is valued at Rs.2 lakh per
annum. Therefore, she has claimed Rs.10,000/- per month for herself and
Rs.5,000/- per month each to her both children.
During cross-examination, she has stated that after death of her
husband she started residing at the house of her father. She further stated
that she does not know the khatiyan of the landed properties of the father-
in-law but stated that her father-in-law has joint landed properties among
his three brothers. She further stated that if her father-in-law gave 1/5th
share of his landed property, she will take it.
14. P.W2-Bijay Kumar Das is the brother of the widow/petitioner
no.1 who has fully corroborated the evidence of the petitioner no.1. He
has supported the factum of marriage and birth of two children from the
said wedlock. This witness has stated that the husband of her sister had
constructed a room but the said was captured by the in laws of her sister.
He further stated that his sister came to her maike. He has deposed that
when the appellants did not agree for compromise, her sister lodged a case
against them. He has deposed that her sister has no source of income of
her own to maintain herself and her two minor children whereas the
appellants produce 500 mounds of paddy per annum from the joint landed
properties valued at Rs.2 lakh.
2025:JHHC:15002-DB
During cross-examination this witness has stated that father-in-
law of her sister (appellant no.1) has given a piece of land for
construction of a house (PM Awas) in the name of the petitioner no1.
15. PW3-Ritesh Kumar is the son of the petitioner no.1 (respondent
no.1) and he has admitted that he is residing at the house of his maternal
grand-father. He has deposed about the death of his father and cruelty and
torture meted out to his mother (petitioner no.1) at the hands of the
appellants. He has deposed that the appellants have grabbed the entire
landed property and they drove his mother from the house. He has
supported the version of the petitioner no.1 that she has no income of her
own to maintain herself along with him and his sister. He has deposed that
the appellants produces 500 mounds of paddy annually from the joint
landed properties valued at Rs.2 lakh.
During cross-examination this witness has stated that he is not
studying in the school. He has further stated that his mother has received
Rs.3-4 lakhs from the L.I.C on death of his father but the appellants have
not given any share from the same.
16. PW.4 Kriplani Das is the father of the petitioner no.1 who has
also fully supported the evidence of the petitioner on the point of torture
meted out to the petitioner no.1 by the in laws and capture of house and
landed property. He has deposed that the petitioner no.1 was driven out
from her in laws' house by her in laws and she is residing with him. He
has deposed that when the in-laws did not agree for compromise, her
daughter lodged a complaint case against them. He has further stated that
the petitioner no.1 has no source of income to maintain herself as well as
2025:JHHC:15002-DB
her minor children whereas the appellants have landed property from
which they earn Rs.2 lakh per annum by producing 500 mounds of paddy.
In cross-examination, he has stated that his daughter is residing
at his house.
17. PW5-Rita Devi is the sister of the widow/petitioner no.1 who
has also fully corroborated her evidence. She has deposed about the
factum of marriage, birth of children and cruelty and torture meted out to
her sister at the hands of her in-laws. This witness has also supported the
fact that the petitioner no.1 has no source of income to maintain herself as
well as her minor children whereas the appellants have landed property
from which they earn Rs.2 lakh per annum by producing 500 mounds of
paddy.
During cross-examination, this witness has stated that the
petitioner no.1 is residing in her father's house and she has no knowledge
regarding the landed properties of her sister.
18. On the other hand, to rebut the case of the petitioners, the
appellant no.1, as DW3, has deposed that his landed property was sold
with the consent of all the shareholders and he had got Rs.9 lakh which
was kept by his son and deposited in the bank account of the petitioner.
He has deposed that after the death of his son, the petitioner/respondent
no.1 went to her maike and filed a false case against them. He has deposed
that he is 65 years old disables person and has no means of livelihood
whereas his younger son (appellant no.2) is a student and the entire family
is dependent on the agriculture and he has no other means of livelihood.
He further stated that if the petitioners reside in his house, he would have
2025:JHHC:15002-DB
no objection and he would try to maintain the petitioner no.1 and to make
arrangement for proper education of her children.
During cross-examination this witness has admitted that the
petitioner no.1 is residing at the house of her father along with her two
children and he is not maintaining them. He has stated that he has a pucca
house with two rooms, one verandah of his eldest son and likewise two
rooms and one verandah of his younger son in which he lives both sides.
He has denied the suggestion that he produces 500 mounds of paddy
annually from agricultural land. He has further denied that he has captured
the entire landed properties of his elder son (petitioner's husband) and
drove the petitioner out from the house.
19. DW2-Prakash Das has admitted the factum of marriage of the
petitioner no.1 with the elder son of DW3 and birth of two children. He
has deposed that after death of her husband, petitioner no.1 went to her
father's house. He has deposed that DW2 (appellant no.1) is 65 years old
disabled person and dependent upon the agriculture for his livelihood and
his younger son, namely, Uttam Kumar Das is a student. He has stated
that DW2 is ready to give a share of his landed property and a portion of
house to the petitioner and he is willing to give proper education to the
minor children.
During his cross-examination, this witness has stated that the
petitioner is not doing any work and the landed property is joint one
among the petitioner's husband, her father-in-law and devar.
20. DW1- Kanti Das has also admitted the marriage of the petitioner
with Jyotish Kumar about 16 years ago and delivery of two children from
their wedlock. He has further stated that after the death of her husband in
2025:JHHC:15002-DB
the year 2022, the petitioner went to her father's house and filed the
present suit. The respondent no 1(appellant no.1) is 65 years old and is
disabled and dependent on the agriculture for livelihood and the
respondent no.2(appellant no.2) is student. The respondent is ready to give
the share in landed properties as well as in the house to the petitioner and
he also wants the proper education of the children. He has no other source
of livelihood and is fully dependent on agriculture for his livelihood.
In cross-examination he has admitted that the petitioner is
presently residing at the house of her father along with her minor children
and the landed properties of her husband is under the occupation of the
respondents and they are not giving any maintenance to the petitioners.
21. It is evident from the evidence of the witnesses that the
petitioner is living in her maike with her minor children and the appellants
have not maintained them having the landed property after death of her
husband. It also appears that the minor children of the petitioner no.1 is
not getting proper education as would be evident from the evidence of
PW3 (minor son of the petitioner no.1) who himself has deposed that he
does not study in school. It appears that the appellants herein got a
handsome amount from the L.I.C. after death of the husband of the
petitioner no.1 and they do not agree to share a proportionate amount to
the petitioner no.1.
22. It is not in dispute that the appellants have landed property
whereas the petitioner no.1 has no source of income and she is fully
dependent upon her father-in-law to maintain herself and her minor
children.
2025:JHHC:15002-DB
23. The short question, which calls for decision in the present
controversy, relates to the right of widowed daughter-in-law and her
minor son and daughter to claim maintenance from the father-in-law.
24. At this juncture it needs to refer herein that under the statutory
scheme of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, a widowed
daughter-in-law is entitled to maintenance from her father-in- law under
Section 19 thereof. The relevant provision, casting statutory obligation on
the father-in-law is extracted herein below:
"S.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,
where 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 (1) 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 remarriage of
the daughter-in- law."
25. A rational interpretation of Section 19 of the Act of 1956 would
show that the statutory obligation on the father-in-law to maintain the
daughter-in-law would arise when the conditions exhaustively enumerated
in sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Act of 1956 are fulfilled. While the
first part of sub-section (1) provides that a Hindu wife shall be entitled to
2025:JHHC:15002-DB
maintenance after the death of her husband, by her father-in-law, such
right is available and limited to the extent when 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 either from the estate
of her husband or her father or mother, or from her son or daughter, if any,
or his or her estate. It is only when all other sources of getting
maintenance and earnings are not available that there arises statutory
obligation on the father- in-law to provide maintenance to widowed
daughter-in-law.
26. The statutory scheme of the Act is quite clear that the father-in-
law would be obliged under the law to maintain widowed daughter-in-law
when all other sources of income as stated in proviso to sub-section (1)
are closed and not available. Therefore, in order to get maintenance from
the father-in-law, the widowed daughter-in-law is required to specifically
plead and prove by leading cogent, reliable and clinching evidence that all
other sources of income maintenance have stated in sub-section (1) are not
available to her. In the absence of specific pleadings and evidence
regarding any of the sources of earning maintenance stated in sub-section
(1) either not pleaded or not proved, the statutory obligation could not be
fastened on the father-in-law, irrespective of whether or not he holds any
coparcenary property, out of which, daughter-in- law has not obtained any
share.
27. According to proviso (a) to section 19, she can be disentitled to
claim maintenance from her father-in-law only if she is able to obtain
maintenance either from the estate of her husband or her father or mother.
The word 'estate' has in law undoubtedly a variety of meaning; it may
2025:JHHC:15002-DB
mean the property of a living man, as also of a deceased person which
passes to his administrators or heirs. But in section 19(a) proviso the
expression 'estate of her husband' clearly denotes the estate of a deceased
person.
28. In order, to understand and appreciate the true meaning and
scope of section 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, the
section must, be construed and interpreted in the background and light of
the legislative scheme or pattern which is discernible and which emerges
from a reading together of the recent progressive legislative measures on
similar or cognate subjects, e.g., Statute like the Hindu Succession Act
,The Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act and the Hindu Women's
Rights to Property Act, as amended later, and other enactments which
have conferred on Hindu women rights with respect to property which
they were considered not to possess under the original texts of Hindu
Law. All these recent enactments which have, as their fundamental
purpose, the removal of Hindu women's disabilities and conferment on
them of better rights for maintenance and the underlying cardinal purpose
of the Parliament in enacting Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, in
response to the needs and demands of a progressive society.
29. Thus. in order to disentitled Hindu widow of her right to claim
maintenance from her father-in-law as provided in section 19(1) of the
Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, it must be established
affirmatively that she is able as of right to obtain maintenance either from
the estate of her husband or from her father or mother.
30. At this juncture it would be apt to discuss the section 22 of the
Act 1956 , for ready reference same is being quoted as under:
2025:JHHC:15002-DB
22. Maintenance of dependants.--(1) Subject to the
provisions of sub-section (2), the heirs of a deceased
Hindu are bound to maintain the dependants of the
deceased out of the estate inherited by them from the
deceased.
(2) Where a dependant has not obtained, by testamentary
or intestate succession, any share in the estate of a Hindu
dying after the commencement of this Act, the dependant
shall be entitled, subject to the provisions of this Act, to
maintenance from those who take the estate.
(3) The liability of each of the persons who take the estate
shall be in proportion to the value of the share or part of
the estate taken by him or her.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2)
or sub-section (3), no person who is himself or herself a
dependant shall be liable to contribute to the maintenance
of others, if he or she has obtained a share or part, the
value of which is, or would, if the liability to contribute
were enforced, become less than what would be awarded
to him or her by way of maintenance under this Act.
31. Thus, it is evident from the Section 22 of the Act 1956 that
Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), the heirs of a deceased Hindu
are bound to maintain the dependants of the deceased out of the estate
inherited by them from the deceased.
32. Further, Section 22(2) of the Act 1956 indicates that once a
person is found to be a "dependant" of the deceased, then such a
"dependant" has a pre-existing right qua the estate of the deceased to get
maintenance and that right, if not crystallized by way of grant of definite
share in the estate of the deceased either one his intestacy or on the
coming into operation of his testament in favour of the dependant, then
such pre-existing right of maintenance would remain operative even after
the death of the Hindu and would get attached to the estate which may get
2025:JHHC:15002-DB
transmitted to his heirs either on his intestacy or on account of the
testamentary disposition in their favour.
33. In the aforesaid backdrop of the settled position of law, this
Court is adverting to the factual aspects of the instant case. From the order
impugned, it is evident that we find that though the widowed/ petitioner
(respondent no.1 herein) has pleaded and proved that she is unable to
maintain herself out of her own earning or other property, there is specific
statement to fulfill statutory conditions enumerated in clause (a) & (b) are
proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Act of 1956. There is also
statement of witnesses which corroborates that she is unable to obtain
maintenance from her father or mother since her father is not earning.
34. The learned Family Judge in the order impugned has considered
the entire factual aspect of the case as also has gone through the relevant
sections of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 to come to a
conclusion that the petitioners are entitled to get maintenance from the
appellants herein. For ready reference, the relevant paragraph of the
findings recorded in the impugned order of the learned Family Judge is
being referred hereinbelow as:
"25. The documents that have been produced from the side of
the petitioner reveal that 4.41 acre land pertaining to khata
no.63 of mouza Koriyasa is recorded in the name of Bhikhu
Mahara, Harkhu Mahara and Etwari Mahara jointly in the
record of right. Likewise 2.39 acre land is recorded in the
name of Bhikhu Mahara in mouza Koriyasa. In the same way
5.14 aere land of mouza Bariarbandhi is jointly recorded in the
name of Bhikhu Mahara, Etwari Mahara and Harkhu Mahara.
26. DW3 Surendra Das (respondent no.1) has admitted in
para-21 of his cross-examination that the land in parcha is
recorded in the name of his great grand-father Bhikhu Mahara.
2025:JHHC:15002-DB
27. Thus the above copies of record of rights reveal that some
of the landed properties are joint and jointly recorded in the
name of Bhikhu Mahara and two others and some of the landed
properties are separately recorded in the name of Bhikhu
Mahara, the great grandfather of the respondent no.1.
28. On the basis of the above appreciation of the evidence this
court comes to the conclusion that the agricultural land among
the petitioner and the respondents have not been partitioned
and the share of the petitioner's husband in the agricultural
land is also under the possession and occupation of the
respondents but the petitioners are not being maintained by the
respondents and therefore, by virtue of Section-19 and 22 of
the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956, the petitioners
are entitled to the maintenance from the respondents.
29. As regards the quantum of maintenance, there is no strait
jacket formula and the court has to consider the status of both
the parties, the area of the share in the landed properties being
cultivated by the respondents, cost of living etc. and
considering all these things, this court thinks Rs. 3000/- per
month maintenance allowance for the Petitioner no.1 and
Rs.1000/-per month each for the maintenance of the Petitioner
no. 2 and 3, will be just and proper. It is therefore, ORDERED
that the respondents are directed to pay Rs. 3000/- per month
maintenance allowance to the petitioner no.1 and Rs. 1000/-
per month each for the maintenance of the Petitioner no. 2 and
3, from the date of filing of this case u/s 19 r/w 22 of Hindu
Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956........"
35. It is evident from the order impugned that the learned Family
Court has appreciated each and every documents and testimonies of
witnesses of both sides and has categorically observed that the agricultural
land among the petitioners (respondents herein) and the respondents
(appellants herein) have not been partitioned and the share of the
husband of the petitioner no.1 (respondent no.1 herein) in the agricultural
land is also under the possession and occupation of the respondents
(appellants herein) but the petitioners are not being maintained by the
2025:JHHC:15002-DB
respondents and therefore, by virtue of Section-19 and 22 of the Hindu
Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956, the petitioners are entitled to the
maintenance from the respondents.
36. This Court after discussing the aforesaid factual aspect along
with the legal position and the consideration made by the learned Family
Judge in the impugned judgment has found therefrom that the issue of
maintenance of minor son, daughter and widow (respondents herein) has
well been considered along with the evidence as well as from the
pleadings made in the plaint and the written statement. The learned
Family Judge on consideration of the evidence, both ocular and
documentary, has come to conclusion that by virtue of Sections 19 and 22
of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956, the petitioners
(respondent herein) are entitled to the maintenance from the respondents
(appellant herein).
37. Further, this Court is conscious with the settled proposition of
law as has been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Gujarat
Steel Tubes Ltd. v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha", (1980) 2 SCC
593 that "an appellate power interferes not when the order appealed is not
right but only when it is clearly wrong decision".
38. This Court, on consideration of the finding arrived at by the
learned Family Judge and based upon the aforesaid discussion, is of the
view that the judgment passed by the learned Family Judge is not coming
under the fold of the perversity, since, the conscious consideration has
been made of the evidences, both ocular and documentary, as would be
evident from the impugned judgment.
2025:JHHC:15002-DB
39. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the judgment dated
11.09.2023 passed in Original Maintenance Case No.58 of 2022 by the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamtara need no interference and,
accordingly, the instant appeal stands dismissed.
40. Pending I.As, if any, stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
I Agree.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Sudhir
Dated: 10/06/2025
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
AFR
