Delhi High Court: In a case wherein, the appellant had filed an appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Sections 96 and 151, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 against the impugned order dated 4-1-2018, wherein the petition under Section 22 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (‘HAMA’), the Division Bench of Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna*, JJ. upheld the order dated 4-1-2018, wherein it was held that the appellant being the divorced daughter, was not entitled to claim any maintenance under the HAMA and accordingly dismissed the present appeal.
Background
In the instant case, the appellant was married in 1995 and was granted an ex-parte divorce on 30-9-2001.
The appellant’s grandmother acquired certain privileged properties and estates and after her demise, those properties and estates dwelled upon the appellant’s father.
In 1999, the appellant’s father passed away, and along with the appellant, her mother, brother and sister were left behind as legal heirs. The appellant claimed that she was not given any share as a legal heir. The appellant claimed that as per her father’s Will dated 25-9-1999, 9 acres of land were given to the appellant and her sister. However, since the khasra number of these lands were not specified, the appellant was not able to trace the land and never got any share in the land.
The appellant further asserted that in a joint meeting of a family members, her family members agreed to pay Rs. 45,000 per month to the appellant towards her maintenance and on assurance that she would not insist for her share in the property bequeathed by her father. Accordingly, she was paid maintenance regularly till November, 2014. Thereafter, the appellant demanded her share in the properties, but was denied.
The appellant claimed that she was a dependant and was entitled to maintenance under Section 22 of the HAMA. The Family Court vide impugned order dated 4-1-2018, held that the appellant was not a dependant under Section 21 of HAMA, and therefore she was not entitled to maintenance from her brother and mother.
Thus, the appellant filed a present appeal.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that Section 21 of the HAMA provided nine categories of dependants who could claim maintenance, but the ‘divorced daughter’ was not mentioned under that category. Further, an unmarried daughter or widowed daughter was recognised to a claim in the deceased’s estate, but ‘divorce daughter’ did not feature in the category of dependants and thus, was not entitled to the maintenance.
The Court stated that since appellant was a divorcee, she had the maintenance claim against her husband. However, the appellant had explained that her husband was untraceable and thus she was unable to claim maintenance from him. The Court further stated that, however difficult the situation might be, the appellant was not a dependant as defined under the HAMA and thus was not entitled to claim maintenance from her mother and brother.
The Court stated that although the appellant had claimed that she was not able to trace the nine-acre land and therefore was unable to claim her share, it was later clarified that in 2001, the land was sold and the appellant and her sister shared the sale proceeds.
The Court stated that the Family Court had rightly observed that the appellant had already received her share from her father’s estates and since she had received her share, she could not again claim maintenance from her mother and brother
The Court observed that the appellant’s mother, with an intent to secure the appellant’s wellbeing, had purchased a flat from her own funds and made arrangements for providing the residence to the appellant. The Court further stated that it could not be overlooked that the appellant’s brother and mother had also supported the appellant by voluntarily giving her Rs. 45,000 per month till 2014.
The Court upheld the Family Court’s order dated 4-1-2018, wherein it was held that the appellant being the divorced daughter, was not entitled to claim any maintenance under the HAMA and accordingly dismissed the present appeal.
[Malini Chaudhari v. Ranjit Chaudhari, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 5657, decided on 13-8-2023]
*Judgment authored by- Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Respondents: Kapil Arora, Manjula Baxla and Prashashti Bhatt, Advocates
