JUDGMENT : Rajani Dubey, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the legality and validity of the order dated 6.12.2022 passed by Family Court, Korba in Civil Suit No.115A/2019 whereby partly allowing the application under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (in short “the Act of 1956”), the learned Family Court directed the appellant/defendant to pay a sum of Rs.2500/- per month as maintenance to the respondents/plaintiffs. 02. Facts, in brief, of the case are that respondent No.1 Smt. Chanda Yadav was married to Govind Prasad Yadav in the year 2006 as per Hindu rites and rituals and from their wedlock, respondents No. 2 & 3 were born. However, in the year 2014 Govind Prasad Yadav died in a motor vehicular accident. Since after his death, the appellant and other family members started ill-treating the respondents/plaintiffs, she started living separately in a rented house with her children. She filed an application u/s 19 of the Act of 1956 and claimed a sum of Rs.20,000/- pm maintenance from the respondent as he is working as peon in State Bank of India, Korba, drawing salary of Rs.40,000/- pm, has 6 decimal of land in Village-Junwani and Bhaisma whereas she has no source of income and has the responsibility of education etc. of the children also. 03. The respondent/defendant in his written statement denied all the adverse averments and stated that respondent/plaintiff No.1 herself left the matrimonial home; respondent No.2 Kaveri is living with him; respondent No.1 is working in a mall and getting Rs.15,000/- pm and also getting ration under the government schemes. Though the respondent tried to bring them back but she remained adamant. The appellant never made any allegation on her character, rather he advised her for remarriage but she refused. Earlier she filed an application under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before JMFC, Korba for interim maintenance which was rejected on 21.8.2019 and thereafter the present suit has been filed. He pleaded that he does not own any of the property of deceased husband of the respondent/plaintiff No.1; he is getting 60 years and would retire in 2020. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the suit. 04. He pleaded that he does not own any of the property of deceased husband of the respondent/plaintiff No.1; he is getting 60 years and would retire in 2020. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the suit. 04. Learned Family Court after framing issues and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record by the impugned order partly allowed the application and granted maintenance of Rs.2500/- to the respondents/plaintiffs making it clear that this order shall be effective till remarriage of respondent No.1 or any other order being passed otherwise. Hence this appeal. 05. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that respondent No.1 is a young, healthy lady of 30 years and can maintain herself by doing some work whereas the appellant is a pensioner having few days in this world and is already maintaining respondent No.2 Ku. Kaveri somehow on her low pension. He submits that respondent No.1 was in illicit relation with someone and refused to perform remarriage. While passing the impugned order learned Family Court did not apply the judicious mind and only out of emotions awarded maintenance to the respondents/plaintiffs which is not legally sustainable. Looking to the age of the appellant, the responsibility cast upon him and the conduct of respondent/plaintiff No.1, the learned Family Court should have dismissed the suit. 06. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supporting the impugned order submits that after due appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, learned Family Court rightly awarded maintenance in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs and as such, there is no need to interfere with this well reasoned order. Reliance has been placed on the judgment dated 4.7.2022 passed by this Court in FAM No.200 of 2015 in the matter of Nand Kishore Lal Vs. Shrimati Chanchala Lal. 07. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 08. It is an admitted position in this case that respondent/plaintiff No.1 is wife of Shri Govind Prasad Yadav, who is son of the appellant/defendant. Their marriage was solemnized in the year 2006 as per Hindu rites and rituals and from their wedlock, respondents/plaintiffs No. 2 & 3 were born. The respondents/plaintiffs filed an application under Section 19 of the Act of 1956 before the Family Court claiming maintenance @ Rs.20,000/- pm. In his reply, the appellant/defendant denied the allegations and averred that respondent/plaintiff No.2 Ku. The respondents/plaintiffs filed an application under Section 19 of the Act of 1956 before the Family Court claiming maintenance @ Rs.20,000/- pm. In his reply, the appellant/defendant denied the allegations and averred that respondent/plaintiff No.2 Ku. Kaveri is still living with him; Govind Prasad Yadav died in the year 2014 in a motor vehicular accident and that character of respondent/plaintiff No.1 is suspicious. He pleaded that she had earlier filed an application under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act which was dismissed by the JMFC on 21.8.2019 and after that she filed the present application on false and frivolous grounds. The appellant is a senior citizen and solely dependent upon his pension, therefore, the application is liable to be dismissed. 09. Learned Family Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence recorded a finding in para 40 of the impugned order that the appellant/defendant is getting pension of Rs.12,000/- pm and as per revenue documents also owns some land and accordingly, awarded Rs.2500/- per month maintenance in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs. 10. In order to ensure the maintenance to the daughter-in-law, Section 19 the Act of 1956 would be relevant, which is quoted below: “ 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.” 11. In the matter of Nand Kishore Lal (supra) this Court observed in paras 19, 20 & 21 as under: “19. In the matter of Nand Kishore Lal (supra) this Court observed in paras 19, 20 & 21 as under: “19. As per the provisions enumerated under Section 19 of the Act, 1956 the widowed daughter-in-la can claim maintenance only if she is unable to maintain herself out of her own earnings or out of estate of her husband or her father or mother, or from her son or daughter, if any, or his or her estate. The right to claim maintenance by widowed daughter-in-law is conditional. The father-in-law having in possession of coparcenary property out of which widowed daughter-in-law has not obtained any share, therefore, the right to receive maintenance from the father-in-law would be limited to the share of coparcenary property held by the father-in-law in his hand in which the widowed daughter-in- law has not taken any share. The preferential right when is considered under sub-section (1) (a) of Section 19 would show that the widowed daughter-in-law would be entitled to claim maintenance firstly from the estate of her husband and thereafter claim can be made from her father or mother. Though the word in Section 'or' is used, which gives the right to a widow to claim from either of the people enumerated in Section, yet the Section is sub divided into part (a) & (b). So the preferential precedents exists giving an option to widow. Thus, it is crystal clear that the estate of husband comes first to claim maintenance by widow. 20. It is the well settled proposition of law that the manager of a joint Mitakshara family is under a legal obligation to maintain all male members of the family, their wives and their children, and on the death of one of the male members he is bound to maintain his widow and his children. (See: Sri Raja Bommadevara Raja Lakshmi Devi Amma Garu v Sr Raja B. Naganna Naidu Bahadur Zamindar Garu and Another and Bhagwan Singh and Others v Mt. Kawal Kaur and Others ). 21. In view of the above stated facts and circumstances, when the estate of the husband is held in the hands of the father-in-law, the daughter-in-law cannot be forced to leave the estate of her husband and to follow the estate of her father or mother. Kawal Kaur and Others ). 21. In view of the above stated facts and circumstances, when the estate of the husband is held in the hands of the father-in-law, the daughter-in-law cannot be forced to leave the estate of her husband and to follow the estate of her father or mother. Thus, we are of the considered view that the estate of husband can be preferred to claim over the father or mother of the daughter-in-law. Consequently, we hold that the daughter-in-law (respondent herein) would be entitled to claim maintenance from the father-in-law. Thus, the impugned order is just and proper and there is no illegality or infirmity.” 12. In the present case, it is clear from the record of learned Family Court that appellant Tularam Yadav admitted in para 18 of cross-examination that he was working as peon in SBI and is getting pension of Rs.13,000/- pm. He also admitted that there is land in the name of his mother which is cultivated by them. He also admits that he would get his share in the said land. In para 19 he denied the suggestion that he purchased a tractor and volunteered that it is purchased by his wife. Learned Family Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record and came to the conclusion that the appellant/defendant has failed to prove that respondent/plaintiff No.1 is having any independent source of income or that she is capable of maintaining herself and the daughter from the estate of her parents and that she has not yet received any share from the coparcenary property of her deceased husband whereas the appellant/defendant has sufficient means of income. Accordingly, the learned Family Court awarded maintenance of Rs.2500/- pm in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the socio-economic status of the parties and the current rate of inflation, the said amount cannot be said to be excessive or exorbitant. This Court finds no illegality or perversity in the impugned order warranting any interference by this Court. 13. In the result, the appeal being sans merits is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed as such. Let a decree be drawn up accordingly.