Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: Nitin W. Sambre, J., while addressing a petition with regard to grant of maintenance held that under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 wife has every right to claim the maintenance after the death of the husband from the estate inherited by her father-in-law.

Facts

Late Bhupinder was married to respondent 1. Respondent 2 was born out of the said marriage.

Mother of Respondent 1 died in the year 2016 and her father died in 2017. She submitted that she has no independent source of earning and she and her son are completely dependent on the earnings of the petitioner.

In view of the above, respondent 1 preferred the proceedings under Section 19 and 22 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 for grant of maintenance of Rs 1,50,000 per month to petitioner 1 and Rs 50,000 to petitioner 2.

Family Court had allowed granted maintenance of Rs 40,000 per month to respondent 1, whereas Rs 30,000 per month to respondent 2.

Hence the present petition was filed.

Analysis and Decision

Section 19 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 contemplates that the wife has every right to claim the maintenance after the death of the husband from the estate inherited by her father-in-law, ie. the present petitioner.

Proviso to Sub-Section (1) of Section 19 contemplates that the respondent has to demonstrate that she on her own is unable to maintain herself.

Thus, it is in the above-stated eventuality that she can claim maintenance from the estate of her husband, still, fact remains that the said burden can be discharged by respondent1 at an appropriate stage.

Further, the court stated that the maintenance awarded to the respondent 1 to the tune of Rs 40,000 and to respondent  2, grandson of Rs 30,000 appears to be justified, considering the income drawn by the petitioner.

High Court stated that it cannot see any material illegalities to infer that the impugned order runs contrary to the scheme of Section 19 of the Act. Hence no case for interference will be made out in the present petition. [Sardool Singh Sucha Singh Mathroo v. Harneet Kaur, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 927, decided on 07-09-2020]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of R.K. Gauba, J. dismissed a petition filed by the petitioner-wife for a right to possession in the house owned by her father-in-law.

The wife had filed a suit under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 impleading her husband and father-in-law. Concededly, the wife lived with her son in a portion of the house which was owned by the father-in-law. The wife submitted that she was allowed to live in the said house under a family arrangement. She claimed a right to possession in the shared household under the Act. The question that arose for consideration was whether the property in question or any portion thereof could be described under the facts and circumstances as a shared household?

The High Court perused Section 2(s) of the Act which describes a shared household. It was conceded at the bar that right of residence under the above mentioned special legislation can be claimed and pressed only against the husband and not against the father-in-law. It was observed as inherent in definition of shared household that the person against whom the right of residence is claimed qua the household described as such, should have a right, title or interest therein. In the facts of the present case, it was held that the wife has no such right of residence, as her claim which was through her husband could not be sustained. The partition suit filed by the husband against his father as also the claim brought through her son had already been rejected by the civil court which had attained finality. It was held that the petitioner was only a permissive user of the house and as such could not force herself on the owner of the property, particularly when she had no vested or legal right to claim residence in his property. For reaching the said conclusion, the Court relied on the Supreme Court decision in S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra, (2007) 3 SCC 169. The petition was accordingly dismissed. [Manju Gupta v. Pankaj Gupta,2018 SCC OnLine Del 11337, Order dated 30-08-2018]