BHARAT LAL SHARMA AND ORS. Vs. MITHLESH SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Appeal under section 19 (1) of the Family Courts Act, short but interesting question arises as to whether compassionate appointment allowed in favour of the respondent/daughter-in-law would form part of the 'estate of the deceased' so as to entitle the deceased's parents, the appellants herein, to obtain maintenance from the respondent under Sections 20 read with Section 22 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act').

(2.) Admittedly, the appellants' only son late Dilip Kumar Sharma was working as Peon in the Family Court, Durg, at the time of his death in harness on 15.8.2009. His widow, respondent-Smt. Mithlesh Sharma @ Priyanka Sharma, applied for compassionate appointment in which the appellants raised a plea that since they were dependent on their deceased son, if the compassionate appointment is allowed in favour of the respondent, who is already residing separate, she should be made liable to maintain them during their life time and should also repay the loan obtained by the deceased. The respondent agreed to maintain the appellants and repay the loan. However, after obtaining the compassionate appointment, she started neglecting to maintain the appellants and eventually, she stopped paying any amount to them.

(3.) In the above circumstances, the appellants moved an application for grant of maintenance under Section 20 read with Section 22 of the Act. The Family Court dismissed the application at the threshold without even noticing the respondent by holding that compassionate appointment allowed in favour of the respondent is not the 'estate of the deceased', therefore, the provision contained in Section 22 (1) of the Act has no application and prayer for grant of maintenance is not maintainable.