Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:1191-DB Court No. - 10 Case :- FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 82 of 2019 Appellant :- Shyam Das Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Appellant :- Arun Kumar Gupta,Deeksha Pal,Saloni Jaiswal Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J. (Order on C.M. Application No.70468 of 2019: Application for condonation of delay in filing of First Appeal) 1. This is an application for condonation of delay occurred in filing of instant first appeal. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 3. Vide order dated 31.05.2019, notice was issued to the respondent No.2 and as per report of the Office dated 16.08.2021, notice has been served upon the respondent No.2 personally, as such, the service is sufficient. 4. Cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of the application appears to be sufficient. 5. Accordingly, the instant application stands allowed and consequently the delay is hereby condoned. 6. Office is directed to allot regular number. (Order on Memo of Appeal) 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The instant appeal under Section 19(1) of The Family Court Act, 1984 has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 01.04.2019 passed by learned Additional District Judge (F.T.C.) / Family Court, Hardoi in Original Suit No.1433 of 2014, whereby the appellant was directed to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to the respondent No.2 as maintenance. 3. The brief facts of the case as alleged by the respondent No.2 are that appellant is father-in-law of the respondent No.2. Marriage of respondent No.2 was solemnized with deceased, Abhishek Gupta on 23.05.2010 as per Hindu Rites and Rituals. From their wedlock, a son was also born, namely, Shiva. Later on her husband died and the respondent No.2 was ousted by the appellant from his house alongwith her child and since then, she is residing at her maternal house along with her son. It is also alleged by the respondent No.2 that after the death of her husband, she did not re-marry, therefore, she is entitled for all the movable and immovable property belonging to her husband, namely, Late Abhishek Gupta, but in spite of repeated request, no maintenance was provided by the appellant being father-in-law of respondent No.2. It is also alleged that respondent No.2 is unemployed having no source of income. 4. The appellant-defendant had filed objection/written statement, which is Paper No.13(ka) denying the allegations made in the petition and it was specifically pleaded that the respondent-plaintiff without their being any sufficient reason has left the house of the appellant-defendant and he is ready and willing to maintain the respondent-plaintiff. It was also mentioned that the respondent No.2 had taken ornaments alongwith cash of Rs.50,000/- and some important documents with her. 5. Learned Family Court, after considering the entire evidence and materials adduced by the parties, had recorded a finding that respondent No.2-plaintiff is a legally wedded wife of Late Abhishek Gupta, the son of appellant and she has not received any share in the property of her husband and the entire property is in possession of appellant-defendant. The learned Family Court had also recorded the finding of fact to the effect that the appellant is getting Rs.50,000/- per year as a rent and the same is also stated by the appellant himself while his cross-examination, however, till date, no amount towards maintenance was provided by the appellant to the respondent No.2 and, as such, had allowed the petition filed under Section 19 of Act, 1956, awarding Rs.2,000/- per month in favour of respondent No.2-Smt. Sushma. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is not having any regular income and this aspect of the matter was not considered by the learned Family Court while allowing the petition under Section 19 of the Act, 1956 filed by respondent/plaintiff. 8. From a bare perusal of impugned judgment and order dated 01.04.2019, it is apparent that the learned Family Court, after considering the entire evidence and materials adduced by the parties and looking the status of the family, had awarded Rs.2,000/- per month to the daughter-in-law, which cannot be treated to be on higher side. Section 19 of the Act, 1956 provides that a Hindu-wife is entitled to be maintained after the death of her husband by her father-in-law and similarly Section 22 of the Act, 1956 provides that the heirs of a deceased are bound to be maintained out of the estate inherited by them from the deceased. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the spiraling inflation rate and high cost of living index, we are of the opinion that Rs.2,000/- per month to the daughter-in-law towards maintenance could not be treated to be on higher side. Thus, we find that the learned Family Court has given a cogent, convincing and satisfactory reasons while passing the impugned order and the same is neither perverse nor based on any extraneous consideration or irrelevant material. This Court, while exercising its appellate jurisdiction can not substitute its opinion for the opinion of the learned Family Court unless it is found that the conclusion drawn by the learned Family Court is factually incorrect, manifestly illegal or perverse. The appellant has failed to point out any infirmity in the finding recorded by the learned Family Court. 10. In view of above, we do not find any illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned order which may warrant any interference by this Court. 11. However, this order will not preclude the respondent from filing an appeal against the impugned order to claim enhancement of maintenance amount. 12. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. 13. There shall be no order as to costs. (Om Prakash Shukla,J.) (Vivek Chaudhary,J.) Order Date :- 7.1.2025 Saurabh Digitally signed by :- SAURABH VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench