Rajju Singh Vs. Munni Devi - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- t.s. doabia, j.1. the right of a widowed daughter-in-law to claim maintenance from the father-in-law is the subject-matter of this revision petition. it arises out of following facts.2. respondent munnidevi, age 29 years, was married to one mulayam singh s/o rajju singh, present applicant. this rajju singh figures as a defendant in a suit said to have been filed under section 19(1) of the hindu adoptions and maintenance act, 1958 (hereinafter referred as the act). it was pleaded by the respondent-widow that she has one-third share in the property and that she has no means to maintain herself. she, thus, claimed maintenance out of the ancestral property in which, according to her, her husband had a share. an application for interim maintenance was also filed. this stands allowed. maintenance amount has been fixed. the present applicant who is father-in-law is to pay rs. 250/- per month in this regard.3. the claim of the respondent was disputed. it was pleaded that a lumpsum amount of compensation was settled in favour of the respondent. the share of property valuing around rs. 45,000/- was given to her. it is this claim which is also to be adjudicated upon in this case.4. as per the petitioner, there is no obligation on the part of the father-in-law to maintain a widowed daughter-in-law. it is argued that no interim maintenance could be fixed under section 19 of the act, and that a widowed daughter-in-law would be entitled to maintenance relief only when the dispute is finally settled one way or the other. section 19 of the act is relevant and it be noticed. this 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 prpoerty 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 co-parcenary 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.'5. i am of the view that the plea taken by the petitioner that any interim maintenance cannot be granted, is an argument which cannot be sustained. the right to claim interim maintenance was examined vis-a-vis section 18 of the act and it was observed that the power to make an interim order for maintenance pending an application under section 18 is implicit. the mere fact that section 18 does not contain any provision for grant of interim relief was held to be no ground for negativing the same. such relief would be ancillary to the power of the court to entertain the application for substantive relief. such view was expressed in indarmal v. babu lal, air 1973 rajasthan 160, d. udayar v. rajarani ammal, air 1973 madras 369 and jyoti prakash v. chameli, air 1975 calcutta 260. in the present case, the applicant has taken a plea that some property has already been settled on the respondent-plaintiff and, therefore, she is not entitled to claim maintenance. this is yet to finally determined.6. the right of a hindu widow to claim maintenance was there even before the hindu adoptions and maintenance act, 1958 was in force. where the husband was a co-parcener, then the widow was entitled to maintenance as against those two took her husband's share by survivorship. such was the view expressed in adhibai v. cursandas, (1887) 11 bom. 199; devi persad v. gunwanti, (1895)22 cal. 410, becha v. mothina, (1901) 23 all. 86; jayanti subbiah v. alamelu, (1904)27 mad. 45. the moral obligation of the father-in-law to maintain the widowed daughter-in-law also existed under the mitakshara as also under the dayabhaga law. this moral obligation arose out of the affinity between him and the widowed daughter-in-law irrespective of joint family status between the father and the deceased husband. see : appayu ydayan v. nallammal, ilr (1949) mad. 16 f.b. as such, the plea taken in the present petition that the father-in-law is not supposed to maintain the widowed daughter-in-law is not sustainable. the applicant has taken 3 plea that some share has already been settled on the wife. this is a plea which is yet to be established. the interim amount of rs.250/- fixed in this case, cannot be said to be excessive.7. this petition is without merit and is dismissed.