ANGAT SINGH AND NARAIN SINGH Vs. DHAN KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Regular First Appeal by Angat Singh Defendant from a judgment and decree dated the 16th of November, 1960, passed by Subordinate Judge First Class, Muktsar, on a suit filed by his daughter -in -law, Dhan Kaur Plaintiff -Respondent under Section 19 of the Hindu. Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, for recovery of maintenance Dhan Kaur claimed to be the widow of Guran Ditta, admittedly a deceased son of Angat Singh.

(2.) THE suit was filed in forma pauperis and in the plaint with which we are concerned it was alleged by Dhan Kaur that she had married Guran Ditta son of Angat Singh, about 20 or 22 years prior to the filing of the suit and had remained with him for three years. On the death of Guran Ditta after three years of her marriage, she continued to remain in the house of Angat Singh but after a year Angat Singh refused to give her food or garments or to look after her and thereupon she started living with her own parents. It was alleged that she had not inherited any property from her deceased husband nor from her parents and having no son or daughter she was unable to maintain' herself. She alleged that the Defendant. Angat Singh owned land measuring about 288 Kanals and 14 marias. It was further alleged that the Defendant had his ancestral property the annual income of which was about Rs. 20,000/, and she therefore claimed Rs. 100/ - per month as maintenance. She prayed that her maintenance should be made a charge on this land.

(3.) AFTER recording evidence, the learned Subordinate Judge First Class, Muktsar, came to the conclusion that the Plaintiff was the widow of Gurdan Ditta who was the son of the Defendant. It appears, from the judgment that the Defendant 'urged before the learned Subordinate Judge that the Plaintiff being the widow of Guran Ditta was not a Hindu "wife" within the meaning of Sub -section (1) of Section 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, and therefore, she could not bring the suit. The learned Subordinate Judge found that there was nothing in the wording of Sub -section (1) of Section 19 to indicate that the case of a widow whose husband had died before the enforcement of the said Act was not covered by the provisions of the sub -section and the, therefore, came to the conclusion that an old widow could claim under Section 19 of the Act.