KRISHNAN Vs. T SASIDEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVEIGHING the order dated 7.5.2007 passed in I.A.No.105 of 2004 in O.S.No.13 of 2004 by the Family Court, Pudhucherry, these civil revision petitions are focussed.

(2.) A summation and summarization of the relevant facts, which are absolute necessary and germane for the disposal of these revision petitions, would run thus:- The plaintiffs, namely, Sasidevi, Dhanalakshmi and minor Thiagaprabakar, represented by his mother first plaintiff, filed the suit O.S.No.13 of 2004 seeking the following relief:

(3.) A bare reading of Section 19 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act would exemplify and demonstrate that a widowed daughter-in-law, who is having no source of income, could claim maintenance from her father-in-law. However, there is no express provision contemplated in the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act that a grand son could claim maintenance directly from the grand father. Even then, the matter has to be viewed holistically and in a practical manner. While assessing the financial wherewithal of the first plaintiff, her commitment to maintain her unmarried daughter as well as the minor son should necessarily be taken into account and in isolation the requirement of the daughter-in-law alone to meet her creature comforts should not be viewed or visualized. There is no embargo under the law that while assessing the financial wherewithal of a widowed lady her commitment to maintain her children should not be taken into account. No doubt, if taken into account, indirectly it might impinge upon the defendant-the father-in-law of the first plaintiff to some extent but not to the fullest extent. Even if there be, to some extent, additional commitment on the part of the father-in-law in paying maintenance to the daughter-in-law, that is well within the principle of natural justice and also the object of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act.