SURESH TIWARI Vs. MADHU TIWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the Impugned Order dtd. 10/1/2020 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Family Court') in HAMA No.3/2017 directing the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.7,000.00 per month to the respondent herein as interim maintenance from the date of the filing of the petition before the learned Family Court till the disposal of the petition.

(2.) The petition before the learned Family Court has been filed by the respondent herein under Sec. 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') praying inter-alia for grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs.20,000.00 per month from the petitioners herein, who are the parents-in-law of the respondent. The learned Family Court, as noted hereinabove, has awarded interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.7,000.00 per month to the respondent to be paid by the petitioners.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Impugned Order has been passed without jurisdiction inasmuch as, in the petition filed by the respondent before the learned Family Court, there is no averment made by the respondent that the petitioner no.1, her alleged father-in-law (I am using the word 'alleged' as the petitioners also dispute that the respondent was married to their deceased son-Late Shri Ranjay Tiwari), has any coparcenary property in his possession, nor has such a finding been given by the learned Family Court in its Impugned Order. He submits that the respondent, even assuming her to be legally married wife of the son of the petitioners, would be entitled to receive maintenance from the petitioner no. 1 only if the petitioner no.1 has any coparcenary property in his possession. In absence of such averment by the respondent or finding by the learned Family Court, petitioner no. 1, alleged father-in-law of the respondent, cannot be made liable to pay maintenance to the respondent. In support of his submissions, he places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court Vimalben Ajitbhai Patel v Vatslabeen Ashokbhai Patel, 2008 (4) SCC 649; of this Court in Laxmi and Anr. v. Shyam Pratap and Anr., Neutral Citation: 2022/DHC/001719; and the judgment dtd. 31/5/2019 passed by Punjab and Haryana High Court in FAO-7203-2017 (O&M), titled Satpal v. Suman and Ors.