MEGHA Vs. VASANTRAO AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 by the appellant-daughter-in-law challenges the judgment of the learned Family Court, Nagpur in Petition No. C-84/2008 thereby dismissing the petition filed by her for maintenance against the father-in-law and mother-in-law.

(2.) Facts, in brief, leading to this appeal are as under:

(3.) The respondents appeared and resisted the appellant's claim by filing written statement, thereby denying all the allegations specifically. They contended that Amol was a L.I.C. Agent and he had eight policies which were drawn before the marriage by the first respondent. Since he was nominee to the said policies, he had received the claim after the death of Amol. The appellant has relinquished her claim in respect of all the policies in writing on 16.04.2008 in the mutual agreement. The second respondent being mother and nominee had received the Gratuity, Renewal Commission, Group Insurance etc. Even the claim for these amounts was relinquished by the appellant in the mutual agreement dated 16.04.2008, which was executed in a meeting at the house of the respondents where the family members of both the sides, so also some respectable persons of the society were present. The appellant signed the said mutual agreement in the presence of the Notary and she had received her 'Stridhan' articles including ornaments and she had relinquished the other claims. It was further averred that there was a locker in Yavatmal Urban Co-operative Bank, Deonagar Branch, Nagpur in the joint name of the appellant and husband Amol. Amol was operating the locker. All the golden ornaments weighing 400 grams were kept in the said locker. The appellant had full knowledge of the locker and she was also nominee to the locker. After the death of Amol, the appellant became the owner of the locker. On enquiry about the locker, the respondents came to know that on 17,01,2008 the locker was lastly operated. On 16.04.2008 i.e. on the date of mutual agreement, the first respondent along with the appellant and her parents went to the said Bank and opened the said locker, it was found empty. They stated that their golden ornaments weighing 400 grams were also kept in the same locker and the appellant must be aware of their and her ornaments. The appellant might have taken all the ornaments to her parental home. They claimed that she may be directed to return their 400 grams gold. On the date of mutual agreement, Tata Safari vehicle was given to the appellant, the value of which was Rs.8,50,000/-. According to the respondents, the said vehicle was given for monthly maintenance of the appellant as was mentioned in the agreement. The appellant had promised to keep the vehicle till her second marriage and she was to return the same to the respondents after her second marriage. According to the respondents, Amol was young when he died and he had no self acquired property and he had not left behind any property. It was further contended that the appellant left the matrimonial home on 12.03.2008 when she was seven months pregnant and she broke all the relations with the respondents. On 14.03.2008, she aborted the fetus only with an intention to perform second marriage. Tata Safari was sold by the appellant without their knowledge. The appellant owned two plots at Netaji Nagar, Nagpur worth Rs.20 Lakhs. The appellant's father was getting handsome pension and he was also getting two lakhs income from 20 acres of irrigated land. Appellant's father had gifted Maruti-800 Car in the marriage, thus he was a rich man. The appellant was a qualified lady and her financial condition was good. According to the respondents, the dispute raised by the appellant did not relate to marriage, hence Family Court had no jurisdiction. They further pointed out that the appellant had filed Special Civil Suit No.1315/2008 for declaration and injunction wherein she had claimed same reliefs against the respondents, which was subjudice. They therefore prayed for dismissal of the petition.