{F.A.(Mat.)No.212/2023} 2025:CGHC:53481-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA(MAT) No. 212 of 2023 {Arising out of judgment dated 27-6-2023 passed by the 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No.420-A/2018} 1. Smt. Archana Rathore, W/o Late Rajan Singh Rathore, Aged about 34 years, 2. Tanmay Singh Rathore, S/o Late Rajan Singh Rathore, Aged about 7 years, Minor Through Natural Guardian mother Smt. Archana Rathore, Wife of Late Rajan Singh Rathore (appellant No.1), Both at present R/o House of Siyaram Rathore, Lingiadih, Surya Vihar, Quarter No.47, Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus Radhelal Rathore, S/o Late Dakchand Rathore, Aged about 64 years, R/o Sector-01, Bhilai, Quarter No.2A, Sadak No.23, Bhilai, Police Station Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellants : Ms. Upasana Mehta, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. K. Radhika, Advocate. Division Bench: - Hon'ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal and Hon'ble Shri Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, JJ. Judgment On Board (31/10/2025) Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. SISTA SOMAYAJULU Digitally signed by SISTA SOMAYAJULU Date: 2025.11.01 17:52:06 +0530 {F.A.(Mat.)No.212/2023} 1. Though the matter is listed for hearing on admission, but with the consent of parties, the matter is heard finally and is being decided by this judgment. 2. This First Appeal (Matrimonial) is filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 by the appellants herein against their father- in-law & grand-father, respectively, i.e. the respondent herein, claiming maintenance under Section 22(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. 3. It is the case of the appellants herein that son of the respondent herein and husband of appellant No.1 herein died on 18-6-2018 and after the death of husband of appellant No.1, the respondent kept all the stridhan with him and he has forced her to go out of his house and he was not giving the amount of maintenance to her and her minor son, though he was getting pension and also on the business of lending money on interest, he used to get ₹ 40,000/- per month and thus, he used to get ₹ 1,00,000/- per month. Therefore, appellant No.1 reported the matter to the police, but the police had not taken any action and thus, she claimed maintenance of ₹ 30,000/- per month along with stridhan. 4. The respondent herein has filed reply refuting the allegations stating inter alia that he retired from Bhilai Steel Plant in the year 2012 and during the lifetime of his son, he had taken insurance policy in the name of his son of which yearly premium was ₹ 50,000/- which was matured and after the death of his son, he has encashed the {F.A.(Mat.)No.212/2023} insurance amount of ₹ 8,16,965-83 ps. from the said insurance policy and he also got ₹ 5,00,000/- out of his retiral dues which were kept in FDR. The respondent has further stated that appellant No.1 has withdrawn the amount of insurance policy and also the amount of FDR, as such, he has no means to pay except the amount of pension. Therefore, the appellants are not entitled for the maintenance amount. 5. The learned Family Court by its impugned judgment rejected the application for maintenance filed on behalf of the appellants herein finding no merit holding inter alia that appellant No.1 had already withdrawn ₹ 8,16,965/- and ₹ 5,00,000/- FDR has also been withdrawn by her and the motorcycle of the deceased has also been sold by appellant No.1. The learned Family Court has further held that no evidence has been brought on record showing that the respondent holds any property upon which the husband of appellant No.1 has any right or interest, therefore, the appellants are not entitled for any relief against which this appeal has been preferred. 6. Ms. Upasana Mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants herein, would submit that the Family Court is justified in rejecting the application for maintenance, as father-in-law of appellant No.1 i.e. the respondent herein is duty bound to maintain his daughter-in-law as he is a pensioner and getting huge income of ₹ 1,00,000/- per month. Therefore, the appellants are entitled for maintenance. Page 4 of 8 {F.A.(Mat.)No.212/2023} 7. Ms. K. Radhika, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent herein, would support the impugned judgment and submit that ₹ 8,16,965/- and ₹ 5,00,000/- and all other amounts have been withdrawn by appellant No.1 and in fact, the ingredients of Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 have not been established by the appellants, therefore, the application has rightly been rejected by the learned Family Court. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also gone through the record with utmost circumspection. 9. After hearing both the parties, the following two questions would emerge for consideration: - 1. Whether appellant No.1 herein has proved that she is unable to maintain herself? 2. Whether appellant No.1 has proved that she is entitled for maintenance under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984? Answer to Question No.1: - 10. So far as the first question is concerned, the Family Court has not recorded any finding that appellant No.1 is unable to maintain herself, as the Family Court has directly reached to the conclusion that in the application under Section 22(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, appellant No.1 has stated that she is not able to maintain herself, however, in the pleading she has only stated that since the respondent has ousted her from his house, therefore, {F.A.(Mat.)No.212/2023} she is suffering from financial hardship and same has been reiterated in the affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In absence of clear averment in the affidavit and evidence that she is unable to maintain herself, question No.1 is answered against the appellants herein and in favour of the respondent herein. Answer to Question No.2: - 11. In order to answer this question, it would be appropriate to notice the provisions contained in Sections 19, 21(iii) and 22 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, which state as under: - Section 19 “19. Maintenance of widowed daughter-in-law.—(1) A Hindu wife, whether married before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be entitled to be maintained after the death of her husband by her father-in-law: Provided and to the extent that she is unable to maintain herself out of her own earnings or other property or, where she has no property of her own, is unable to obtain maintenance— (a) from the estate of her husband or her father or mother, or (b) from her son or daughter, if any, or his or her estate. (2) Any obligation under sub-section (1) shall not be enforceable if the father-in-law has not the means to do so from any coparcenary property in his possession out of which the daughter-in-law has not obtained any share, and any such obligation shall cease on the re-marriage of the daughter-in- law.” Section 21 clause (iii) “21. Dependants defined.—For the purposes of this Chapter “dependants” mean the following relatives of the deceased:— (iii) his widow, so long as she does not re-marry;” {F.A.(Mat.)No.212/2023} Section 22 “22. Maintenance of dependants.—(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) the heirs of a deceased Hindu are bound to maintain the dependants of the deceased out of the estate inherited by them from the deceased. (2) Where a dependant has not obtained, by testamentary or intestate succession, any share in the estate of a Hindu dying after the commencement of this Act, the dependant shall be entitled, subject to the provisions of this Act, to maintenance from those who take the estate. (3) The liability of each of the persons who takes the estate shall be in proportion to the value of the share or part of the estate taken by him or her. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) or sub-section (3), no person who is himself or herself a dependant shall be liable to contribute to the maintenance of others, if he or she has obtained a share or part the value of which is, or would, if the liability to contribute were enforced, become less than what would be awarded to him or her by way of maintenance under this Act.” 12. Section 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 is an enabling provision under which a right of a widowed daughter-in-law to receive maintenance from her father-in-law is recognised. Proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 19 states that to the extent such widowed daughter-in-law is unable to maintain herself out of her own earnings or other property or where she has no other property of her own and is further unable to obtain maintenance from the estate of her husband or her father or mother or her children or their estate, maintenance can be claimed from the father-in-law. 13. In the instant case, appellant No.1 in her cross-examination has stated that during the lifetime of her husband, all domestic expenses were being born by her father-in-law i.e. the respondent herein and {F.A.(Mat.)No.212/2023} at the time of birth of Tanmay i.e. appellant No.2 herein, hospital expenses were also born by the respondent herein. She has also admitted that the expenses of her husband’s treatment were also born by her father-in-law i.e. the respondent herein and she has further admitted that she has not submitted any document with regard to income of her father-in-law i.e. the respondent herein. She has further stated that she had received the amount of insurance claim of ₹ 8,16,965/- done by her father-in-law i.e. the respondent herein. She has also admitted in paragraph 22 of her statement before the Court that no document with regard to ancestral property of her in-laws has been filed by her. 14. Similarly, the respondent herein has clearly admitted that he had suffered heart attack in the month of December, 2010 and he remained hospitalised in ICU. He has further stated that he has incurred ₹ 2,00,000/- for NPTI training of his son at Jindal. He has also stated that his daughter-in-law has taken all the ornaments and ₹ 5,00,000/- FDR amount which he deposited in the name of his son i.e. the maturity amount of ₹ 5,38,000/-. He has also stated that the pulsar motorcycle owned by his son has also been sold by appellant No.1. He has further stated that he does not have any ancestral property in his name and his financial condition is very weak as he is getting a very meagre amount of pension i.e. ₹ 1,991/- per month. All other suggestions with regard to income have been refuted by the respondent herein. Page 8 of 8 {F.A.(Mat.)No.212/2023} 15. As such, it is quite established that the respondent is only getting pension of ₹ 1,991/- per month and he has no other property in his possession and an amount to the extent of ₹ 8,16,965/- & ₹ 5,00,000/- has also been encashed by appellant No.1 herein. Therefore, the Family Court has rightly rejected the application for maintenance filed by the appellants herein. 16. After going through the record, we do not find any merit in the appeal, it deserves to be and is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Judge Soma