Judgment : Rajani Dubey, J. 1. Heard on I.A.No.02/2024, for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. Learned counsel for plaintiffs/respondents strongly objected this application and submits that no sufficient cause has been shown by the defendant/applicant. Hence, the same is liable to be dismissed. 3. As per I.A.No.02/2024, the defendant/appellant was not aware about the passing of judgment dated 29.06.2024 and he got the certified copy of the judgment after long delay and thereafter he filed this appeal. The defendant/appellant resides in rural area and did not have the basic minimum qualification and his local counsel did not make him aware about the judgment in the case. So he filed this appeal after 443 days. The application is supported by the affidavit of defendant/appellant. 4. Thus, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons assigned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 443 days in filing the appeal stands condoned. 5. Heard on admission. 6. The present appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been preferred by the appellant/defendant against the judgment and decree dated 25.02.2023 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Baloda Bazar (C.G.), in M.J.C. Case No.03/2022 whereby, the application preferred by the plaintiffs/respondents filed under Section 19(1) of the Hindu Adoption and maintenance Act was partly allowed. The parties to this appeal shall be referred herein as per their description before the Family Court. 7. Briefly stated fact of the case are that the marriage of plaintiff No. 01 - Ranu Sahu was solemnized with Reshamlal Sahu, son of defendant Hemu Sahu, in the year 2008 in village Baloudi according to social customs, which was recognized by the Sahu community and both started living a happy married life as husband and wife & out of their wedlock, 02 girls namely Preeti Sahu, Jaya Sahu and 01 boy namely Naveen Sahu were born, who are currently under the protection of the plaintiff. It was pleaded in the plaint that after marriage, the relationship between the plaintiff No. 1 and her in-laws remained cordial for approximately 10 years. Thereafter, Reshamlal, husband of the plaintiff No.1, under the influence of his father, started harassing the plaintiff No.1 physically and mentally. It was pleaded in the plaint that after marriage, the relationship between the plaintiff No. 1 and her in-laws remained cordial for approximately 10 years. Thereafter, Reshamlal, husband of the plaintiff No.1, under the influence of his father, started harassing the plaintiff No.1 physically and mentally. The Plaintiff No. 1 tolerated the physical and mental torture inflicted by her husband with the hope that sooner or later his temperament would change and their married life would be happy. However, there was no change in Reshamlal Sahu's behavior, and from time to time, he used to assault the plaintiff No.1. It was further pleaded in the plaint that defendant and plaintiff No1’s mother-in-law, Teejan Bai Sahu, being very cruel and harsh in nature, did not show affection to the plaintiff and her their grandson and grand- daughter. Thus, the plaintiff No.1 continued to tolerate the behaviour of the defendant. After some time, plaintiff No. 01 went to her maternal village Baloudi with her minor children. On the same day, Reshamlal Sahu, husband of plaintiff No. 01, had gone to meet his minor children and plaintiff No. 01 but could not meet them and went back to his home and after some time, due to dispute with his parents, Reshamlal Sahu lost his patience and committed suicide by pouring kerosene on him on 12-06-2018. After receiving the information about Reshamlal’s suicide, plaintiff No. 01 went to her in-laws' house with children and participated in last ritual of her husband and started living with her in-laws in their house. It was also pleaded in the plaint that during her stay in her in-laws’ house, the defendant started misbehaving with plaintiff No. 01 and do not provide food, drink and proper health benefits to plaintiff No. 01 and her minor children, due to which the plaintiffs have become destitute and helpless. The plaintiffs, due to the physical and mental torture being done by the defendant, called a social meeting against her in-laws, wherein the prominent persons of the society asked the defendant to live with plaintiff No. 01 and her minor children with responsibility for their upbringing and provide a room and one acre of land for their livelihood, but the defendant, violating the orders of the prominent persons of the society, refused to give anything. It was also pleaded in the plaint that plaintiff No. 01 has no means of livelihood due to which she is living with her minor children at her parents' house in village Baloudi and being a widowed daughter-in-law, she is entitled to receive maintenance from defendant. Due to the death of plaintiff No. 01's husband, the plaintiffs have become helpless and there is no source of income for the education, care and upbringing of the three minor children, therefore, the plaintiffs filed the suit for maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- for herself and Rs. 3,000/- each for the three minor children, totaling Rs. 14,000/- per month as maintenance from the defendant. 8. The defendant, in his reply, denied all the allegations and stated that the plaintiff No. 1 was married with some other persons in village Sarora, Raipur, where plaintiff No. 1 was living with her husband in her in-laws' house at Sarora for about 1 year. Plaintiff No. 1 had trapped the defendant's son Reshamlal Sahu in her love and after calling Reshamlal to her village Sarora, she left her in-laws' house and ran away with his son Reshamlal and lived in Raipur for 3-4 months. Thus, there was no marriage between plaintiff No. 1 and defendant's son Reshamlal as per Hindu law and customs. After few days, both of them came to village Baloudi and started living in the defendant's house. It was further averred that no marriage was solemnized between the plaintiff No.1 and his deceased son Reshamlal and the day since plaintiff No. 01 came to the defendant's house with his son, she has been arguing and fighting over trivial issues and had always been harassing and torturing the defendant's son. The maternal home of plaintiff No. 01 is also in village Baloudi and ever since plaintiff no. 01 started living with the defendant's son, the plaintiff used to go to her maternal home after arguing and quarreling with defendant, his wife and son Reshamlal. The maternal home of plaintiff No. 01 is also in village Baloudi and ever since plaintiff no. 01 started living with the defendant's son, the plaintiff used to go to her maternal home after arguing and quarreling with defendant, his wife and son Reshamlal. The plaintiff No.1 used to threat the defendant to implicate all of them in a false case by showing her dominance, on which the defendant and his family convened meetings of community heads to convince the plaintiff, where plaintiff No. 01 lived with Reshamlal for only few days and would argue over trivial issues and refused to cook and serve food & used to go to her maternal home, eat food and then come back to the defendant's house. It was also averred that the plaintiff and son of defendant Reshamlal used to live together in village Baloudi and Reshamlal worked as mechanic & plaintiff No.1 did sewing and embroidery work. The defendant went to Maharashtra with his wife Teejan Bai for livelihood and in the meanwhile, the plaintiff No.1 kept harassing and torturing the defendant's son Reshamlal and threatened to implicate him in a false case, due to which, being harassed, Reshamlal tried to burn himself by pouring kerosene on him. After getting information about the said incident, the defendant and his wife, while returning from Maharashtra, bought clothes for the plaintiffs and Reshamlal & brought a bicycle for plaintiff No.4, which shows defendant’s and his wife affection and love for the plaintiffs, but plaintiff No. 1 never behaved well with the defendant, his wife and his son Reshamlal. It was also averred that the plaintiff left and went to her parents' house, whereupon Reshamlal went to bring her along with the children on the same day but the plaintiff quarreling with Reshamlal refused to come with him, insulted him and threatened to implicated all of them in a case and after returning from there, due to trauma, the defendant’s son Reshamlal committed suicide after pouring kerosene oil. It has been also pleaded that after the sad demise of defendant’s son, he requested the plaintiff No.1 to live with them as their only son died but the plaintiff No.1 refused to live with them and went to her maternal home with children. It has been further averred that Plaintiff No. 1 previously worked as a tailor and continued to do so. It has been further averred that Plaintiff No. 1 previously worked as a tailor and continued to do so. & her sewing work is thriving in the village. From this work, Plaintiff No. 1 earns approximately 1,000/- per day, enabling her to support herself and the other plaintiffs. The defendant is still willing to provide a house for the plaintiffs. The defendant and his wife are elderly and unable to work for their livelihood. However, Plaintiff No. 1 is residing at her parents' home to avoid her responsibility. Plaintiff No. 1's parents are also well-off, and she is an adult woman with an income, capable of supporting herself and the other plaintiffs. The defendant does not own any agricultural land and is barely supporting himself and his wife. When plaintiff No. 1 was at the defendant's home, she used to earn income by running a business of sewing and used to support the plaintiffs, the defendant and his wife. Thus, plaintiff No. 1 being not legally wedded wife of the defendant's son, is not entitled to receive maintenance amount from the defendant. Therefore, the plaint filed by the plaintiffs under Section 19 (1) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1959 is baseless and unfounded & hence the suit may be dismissed. 9. The learned Family Court, after examining oral and documentary evidence, partly allowed the application of plaintiffs holding that the plaintiff No.1 has not been successful in proving her case and the plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4 have been successful in proving their case and thus granted Rs.6,000/- (Rs. 2,000/- each to plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4) per month as maintenance. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant. 10. Learned counsel for the defendant/appellant submits that the appellant is senior citizen and the learned Family Court without appreciating the provisions of Section 19 (1) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1959, passed the impugned judgment and decree, which is illegal, perverse and against the provision of law. The learned Family Court ought to have considered the deposition of respondent No.1, wherein she has stated that Dilip Sahu was her first husband and without getting divorce she had married with the second husband late Reshamlal Sahu and she has failed to prove her marriage with the son of defendant/appellant. The learned Family Court ought to have considered the deposition of respondent No.1, wherein she has stated that Dilip Sahu was her first husband and without getting divorce she had married with the second husband late Reshamlal Sahu and she has failed to prove her marriage with the son of defendant/appellant. Learned counsel also submits that the learned trial Court did not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence properly and passed the impugned order which is illegal and not sustainable. The appellant is old aged person and living with his old aged wife and no one is there to look after him and his wife & he is doing farming work for his livelihood and his total earning is utilised in maintenance of his wife and household. So, the impugned judgment and decree is liable to be set aside. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for plaintiffs/respondents supporting the impugned judgment and decree submits that the learned Family Court has rejected the claim of plaintiff/respondent No.1 – Ranu Sahu and only awarded maintenance in favour of plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4, who are minor daughters and son of late Reshamlal Sahu, who is son of defendant/appellant and the learned trial Court after proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, passed the impugned order and only awarded Rs.2,000/- each to plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4, totaling Rs.6,000/- as maintenance, which is inadequate. So, the instant appeal is liable to be dismissed. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 13. The first objection of defendant/appellant is that the plaintiff/respondent No.1 is not legally wedded wife of defendant’s son Reshamlal Sahu, and the plaintiffs/respondents filed the application under Section 19 (1) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1959, which is not maintainable, therefore, the impugned judgment being against the provision of Section 19 (1) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1959, is liable to be set aside. 14. It is clear from the application filed by plaintiffs/respondents that this application has been filed under Section 19 (1) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1959 and the plaintiff No.1/respondent – Ranu Sahu is wife and plaintiffs/respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are children of late Reshamlal Sahu. 15. 14. It is clear from the application filed by plaintiffs/respondents that this application has been filed under Section 19 (1) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1959 and the plaintiff No.1/respondent – Ranu Sahu is wife and plaintiffs/respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are children of late Reshamlal Sahu. 15. The learned Family Court after minutely appreciating oral and documentary evidence finds that plaintiff No.1/respondent Ranu Sahu is not legally wedded wife of late Reshamlal Sahu, son of defendant/appellant herein. But the learned Family Court finds that plaintiffs/respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are children of plaintiff No.1 – Ranu Sahu and late Reshamlal Sahu, son of defendant/appellant & thus rejected the application in respect of plaintiff No.1/respondent No.1 and allowed the application of plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4/respondent No. 2 to 4 herein granting Rs.2,000/- per month each, totaling Rs.6,000/- per month as maintenance. 16. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of P.K. Palanisamy Vs. N. Arumugham and Another reported in (2009) 9 SCC 173 : (2009) 3 SCC (Civ) 649 held in para 27 as under :- “27. …….. Only because a wrong provision was mentioned by the appellant, the same, in our opinion, by itself would not be a ground to hold that the application was not maintainable or that the order passed thereon would be nullity. It is a well-settled principle of law that mentioning of a wrong provision or non- mentioning of a provision does not invalidate an order if the court and/or statutory authority had the requisite jurisdiction therefor.” 17. Section 19 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1959 provides for maintenance of widowed daughter-in-law but Section 21 of the Act, 1956, provides as under :- 21. Dependants defined. Section 19 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1959 provides for maintenance of widowed daughter-in-law but Section 21 of the Act, 1956, provides as under :- 21. Dependants defined. - For the purposes of this Chapter "dependants" mean the following relatives of the deceased :- (i) his or her father; (ii) his or her mother; (iii) his widow, so long as she does not re-marry; (iv) his or her son or the son of his predeceased son or the son of a predeceased son of his predeceased son, so long as he is a minor; provided and to the extent that he is unable to obtain maintenance, in the case of a grandson from his father's or mother's estate, and in the case of a great grand-son, from the estate of his father or mother or father's father or father's mother; (v) his or her unmarried daughter, or the unmarried daughter of his predeceased son or the unmarried daughter of a predeceased son of his predeceased son, so long as she remains unmarried: provided and to the extent that she is unable to obtain maintenance, in the case of a grand-daughter from her father's or mother's estate and in the case of a great- grand-daughter from the estate of her father or mother or father's father or father's mother; (vi) his widowed daughter: provided and to the extent that she is unable to obtain maintenance - (a) from the estate of her husband, or (b) from her son or daughter if any, or his or her estate, or (c) from her father-in-law or his father or the estate of either of them; (vii) any widow of his son or of a son of his predeceased son, so long as she does not remarry: provided and to the extent that she is unable to obtain maintenance from her husband's estate, or from her son or daughter, if any, or his or her estate; or in the case of a grandson's widow, also from her father-in-law's estate; (viii) his or her minor illegitimate son, so long as he remains a minor; (ix) his or her illegitimate daughter, so long as she remains unmarried.”] 18. It is clear from the application filed by the plaintiffs/respondents that the plaintiffs/respondent Nos. It is clear from the application filed by the plaintiffs/respondents that the plaintiffs/respondent Nos. 2 to 4 filed application as children of late Reshamlal Sahu and in written statement defendant/appellant herein has stated that plaintiff No.1 – Ranu Sahu was living with his son Reshamlal Sahu and has also stated in para 7 and 8 that after the sad demise of his son Reshamlal Sahu, he requested the plaintiff No.1- Ranu Sahu to live with them as their only son died but the plaintiff No.1 refused to live with them and went to her maternal home with children. The defendant has not uprootedly denied that the plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4 are not the children of his son Late Reshamlal Sahu. The defendant/appellant herein has also pleaded in his written statement that he has much affection and love with plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4, the children of his son Late Reshamlal Sahu. The defendant/appellant has also admitted in para 3 of his cross-examination that plaintiff No.1- Ranu Sahu stayed in his home for 24 years and he self stated that plaintiff No.1’s three children (plaintiff Nos. 2 to 4) were born in his house. 19. The learned Family Court also minutely appreciated oral and documentary evidence and awarded only Rs.2,000/- each to plaintiffs/respondent Nos. 2 to 4 herein (total Rs.6,000/-) per month as maintenance, which is just and proper. The learned Family Court has also finds that defendant/appellant herein has 04 acres of agricultural land. The learned Family Court having minutely appreciated oral and documentary evidence and after inquiry, has rightly passed the impugned judgment and decree, which does not call for any interference by this Court. 20. The appeal being devoid of merit liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself. The parties shall bear their respective costs. 21. Let a decree be drawn-up accordingly.