JAYANTI DEVI Vs. RAMDEO SHAW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, the respondent before the Judge, Family Court, Rourkela in C.P. No.6 of 2007 assails the judgment dated 12.12.2008, whereby the court of original jurisdiction allowed the petition filed by the parents-in-law of the appellant and directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.500/- per month to each of the respondents for maintenance.

(2.) Case of the petitioners in C.P. No.6 of 2007 being the respondents herein is that the respondents are very old. Their son (appellant's husband) Pramod was working in Lathikata Rural Post Office. Pramod died by a vehicular accident on 22.04.1998. The appellant got the job of her deceased husband under rehabilitation scheme on compassionate ground with an undertaking before the postal authorities to look after the respondents and three minor children of respondents. The appellant also got all the death benefits of her deceased husband by way of Rs.80,000/- by order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Life Insurance benefit of the deceased of Rs.50,000/- and death benefit of the deceased from the Postal Department amounting to Rs.1,00,000/-. But the appellant despite of getting the service of her deceased husband and his other death benefit refused to maintain and take care of the respondents- petitioners therein and lived separately from the respondents. The appellant is getting salary of Rs.4000/- per month.

(3.) The respondent in C.P. No.6 of 2007 is the appellant in this case. She has taken the plea that after the death of her husband, she was appointed by the postal authorities on her own application and not under any rehabilitation scheme. She has not given any undertaking before the postal authorities, at the time of her appointment, to maintain the respondents and the minor children of the respondents. The respondents have sold their landed property for Rs.5,00,000/- at their native place from which they get interest of Rs.5,000/- per month. The respondents have got two other living major earning sons who are liable to maintain the respondent but they have not been impleaded as parties in C.P. No.6 of 2007.