RAJ KISHORE MISHRA Vs. MEENA MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Section 19 of the Family Court Act against decree directing payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs.500.00 per month by the appellant. Case of plaintiff-respondent is that she is widow of the son of appellant. Appellant, despite, approach, is not maintaining her or permitting her to reside in the famine house. On the other hand appellant has deposited compensation amount of Rs.10,000.00 in his name depriving the widow-plaintiff from the same. Therefore, she is residing with her brother at Kanpur. In this circumstance direction should be given to defendant for granting maintenance to her. Case of defendant is that marriage of his deceased son with plaintiff is void under Hindu Marriage Act and as such he has no obligation to maintain her. Besides plaintiff is residing with her parents and is being maintained by them for which he has no obligation to maintain her.

(2.) Learned trial Judge held that plaintiff is daughter-in-law of defendant and is residing with her brother and accordingly, defendant is to maintain her. On this finding he has directed payment of Rs.500.00 per month towards maintenance. This is grievance of the appellant.

(3.) Liability of a father-in-law to maintain daughter-in-law arises from statutory provisions> contained in S. 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. It reads as follows:-