GEETA SHARMA Vs. KANCHANA RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the present Appeal filed under Sec. 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the Appellant Plaintiff before the Ld. Single Judge. assails the correctness of the impugned judgement and order dtd. 27/8/2024 Hereinafter referred to as "Impugned Order"., passed by Ld. Judge, Family Court-01, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi3 in HAMA No.09/2023 captioned Geeta Sharma vs. Kanchana Rai & Ors., whereby the Petition filed by the Appellant under Ss. 19, 21, 22 and 23 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 Hereinafter referred to as "the Family Court". was found to be non-maintainable in view of Sec. 22 of the HAMA and was accordingly dismissed.

(2.) The question of law requiring adjudication of this Court in the present Appeal is whether a daughter-in-law, who becomes a widow after the demise of her father-in-law, is entitled to claim maintenance from the estate derived from coparcenary property of her deceased father-in-law. Since the issue before this Court pertains solely to a pure question of law being answered, hence, it is considered neither necessary nor appropriate to set out the detailed factual matrix leading to the present case. In view thereof, only the facts relevant and/or material for the adjudication of the question of law in regard to the issue at hand shall be referred to hereinafter.

(3.) The Appellant became a widow after the death of her husband on 2/3/2023, whereas her father-in-law, namely Dr. Mahendra Prasad, had pre-deceased his son, having passed away on 27/12/2021. Pursuant thereto, the Appellant filed a Petition under Sec. 19 of the HAMA. However, the Petition filed by the Appellant has been dismissed by the Family Court on the ground that it was not maintainable in view of the bar contemplated under Sec. 22 of the HAMA. The relevant provisions of the HAMA are reproduced hereinbelow and is to be read as under: