Rajjusingh Ajuddhisingh Vs. Munnidevi Wd/O Mulayamsingh - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- motor vehicles act, 1988 [c.a. no. 59/1988]section 147; [a.k. patnaik, cj, s.s. jha & a.m. sapre, jj] liability of insurer - third party insurance held, the insured who is a party to the insurance is not a third party for the purpose of chapter xi of the act, particularly section 147 thereof. thus, any person other than the insurer and the insured who are parties to the insurance policy is a third party. the insurer, however, would not be liable for any bodily injury or death of a third party in an accident unless the liability is fastened on the insurer under the provisions of section 147 of the act or under the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. hence, the mere fact that a passenger is a third party would not fasten liability on the insurer unless such liability arises under section 147 of the act or under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. an employee is a third party inasmuch as he is not a party to the insurance policy. but merely because an employee is a third party, the insurance company would not be liable to compensate in case such employee suffers bodily injury or dies in an accident in which the motor vehicle is involved unless section 147 of the act fixes such liability on the insured or unless the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance fixes liability on the insurer. section 147 (1)(b) of the act provides that in order to comply with the requirements of chapter xi of the act, a policy of insurance must be a policy which insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2) against the liabilities mentioned in clauses (i) and (ii) thereunder. even if an employee is a passenger or a person travelling in a motor vehicle which is insured as per the requirements of sub-section (1) of section 147 of the act, the insurer will not be liable to cover any liability in respect of death or bodily injury of such employee unless such employee falls in one of the categories mentioned in sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c)of clause (i) of the proviso to sub-section (1)of section 147 of the act and further in cases where such employees fall under categories mentioned in sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) of clause (i) of the proviso to sub-section (1`) of section 147 of the act, the insurer is liable only for the liability under the workmens compensation act, 1923. [national insurance co. ltd. v sarvanlal, 2004 (4) mpht 404 (d.b) overruled]. sections 147 & 96 & m.p. m.v. rules, 1994, rule 97; [a.k. patnaik, cj, s.s. jha & a.m. sapre, jj] control of transport vehicles m.p. rules relate to provisions of control of transport vehicles and it cannot be adopted for interpreting sections 147 and 145 of the m.v. act to hold the insurer liable for death or bodily injury suffered by passenger. [national insurance co. ltd. v sarvanlal, 2004 (4) mpht 404 (d.b) overruled].ordert.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, aged 29 years, was married to one mulaym 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 to 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 lump sum 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 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 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 1977 raj. 160; d. udayar v. rajarani ammal, air 1973 mad. 369 and jyoti prakash v. chameli, air 1975 cal. 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 who 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 a 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.

Judgment:
ORDER

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, aged 29 years, was married to one Mulaym 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 to 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 lump sum 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 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 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 1977 Raj. 160; D. Udayar v. Rajarani Ammal, AIR 1973 Mad. 369 and Jyoti Prakash v. Chameli, AIR 1975 Cal. 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 who 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 a 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.