Date of reserved for orders : - Date of pronouncement : 06.08.2026 Date of uploading : APHC010312702009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE 6th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO: 194 OF 2009 Between: 1. Sri Vempada Bangaru Setty, S/o.Tammayya, aged about 69 years, R/o.Santhapeta Chittivalasa Village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 2.Smt.Vempada Paidamma, W/o.Bangaru Setty, Hindu, aged about 63 years, R/o.Santhapeta Chittivalasa Village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. ...Petitioners AND 1.Smt. Vempada Padmavathi, W/o.late Srinivasa Reddy, Hindu, aged about 33 years, R/o.104 Area, Industrial Estate Post, Visakhapatnam. 2.The State of A.P, represented by its District Collector Visakhapatnam [R2 not necessary in this appeal] ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: JOSYULA BHASKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following order: 2 DEV, J & SUN, J FCA_194_2009 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM FAMILY COURT APPEAL (FCA) NO: 194 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice Sunitha Gandham) Assailing the order dated 18.12.2008 passed in O.P. No.458 of 2005 by the learned Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam granting maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month to the petitioner payable by the respondents towards maintenance, the appellants preferred this instant appeal. 2. The parties are being referred to as „petitioner‟ and „respondents‟ as arrayed in the petition before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience and clarity. 3. Case of the petitioner is thus: a) The petitioner is legally wedded wife of one Vempada Srinivasa Reddy who is the only son of respondents and their marriage was solemnized on 14.12.1990 as per the Hindu Rites and Caste customs. Out of their lawful wedlock, they do not have children and at the time of marriage, her parents presented Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) and sare saman worth of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) to the respondents. Thereafter, husband of the petitioner met with an accident, sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the said injuries. Accordingly, she filed M.O.P. No.78 of 1993 and the same is allowed. Petitioner and respondents withdrew their shares of compensation. b) During the life time of her husband, he took LIC policy vide policy No.690507657 by showing the petitioner as nominee. In the month of November, 2002, respondents necked out the petitioner from their house and since then, she has been staying at her parents house. Subsequently, she 3 DEV, J & SUN, J FCA_194_2009 came to know that the respondents withdrew the LIC amounts by managing the LIC authorities. Respondents also alienated the ancestral properties and deserted the petitioner and failed to maintain her. 4. Respondents filed counter admitting the relationship between the petitioner with them and death of their son and denying the other averments, wherein, interalia contended that they have not received any amount from the parents of the petitioner, after death of their son, petitioner left their house and has been staying with her parents, these respondents have no movable and immovable properties, respondent No.2 has been suffering from leprosy decease for the last more than 20 years and she is required to incur Rs.50 to Rs.100/- per day towards medical expenses, respondents also sold away their house to discharge their debts, petitioner is not entitled to receive insurance amount of Rs.2 lakh as she is not shown as nominee and had really, the petitioner is shown as nominee, the insurance authorities ought to have paid the said amounts to her. Further, except a small fire wood deposit shop, they do not have any properties and also they do not have any means to pay maintenance to the petitioner and on the other hand, she has properties in her name, and with other formal denials, prayed to dismiss the petition. 5. During enquiry, petitioner herself examined as PW1 and she has got examined PW.2 one of the elder of their family and filed Exs.A1 and A2 and on the other hand, respondent No.1 examined himself as RW1 and respondents have got examined two independent witnesses as RWs 2 and 3, and no documents are filed. 6. At the culmination of enquiry, having considered the material, the trial Court granted maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month to the petitioner, payable by the respondents on or before 10th of every succeeding month and feeling aggrieved by the said order, respondents preferred this instant appeal urging the following grounds: 4 DEV, J & SUN, J FCA_194_2009 i) The impugned order and decree dated 18.12.2008 is contrary to law, weight of evidence, probabilities of the case apart from other material irregularities. ii) The trial Court failed to appreciate the facts of the case and the law in proper perspective. iii) The trial Court failed to see that the right of widowed daughter-in- law is to file suit for partition against her in-laws, but not for maintenance. iv) The trial Court failed to see that the respondents are very old aged persons, have no financial assistance and not in a position to pay any maintenance to the petitioner. v) The trial Court failed to see that the 2nd respondent has been suffering from leprosy for the last 20 years and one of her leg was amputated, and with other formal grounds prayed to allow the appeal. 7. Heard Sri Josyula Bhaskara Rao, learned counsel for the appellants and since there is no representation on behalf of the respondent, arguments of the respondent is closed. 8. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and upon perusing the material placed on record including the order and decree of the trial court, the points that would arise for consideration are: i) Whether the petitioner established her case to grant maintenance? ii) Whether the order and decree passed by the trial court are sustainable in facts and law? iii) To what relief? 5 DEV, J & SUN, J FCA_194_2009 9.POINT NO.1: a) It is not in dispute that the petitioner is legally wedded wife of son of respondents i.e., late Sri Vempada Srinivasa Reddy and their marriage was solemnized on 14.12.1990 as per Hindu rites and caste customs and that they do not have children. Further, husband of the petitioner met with an accident, sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the said injuries on 07.06.2002 and the petitioner filed M.O.P. No.78 of 1993 seeking compensation for the untimely death of her husband and after disposal of the said petition, the petitioner and respondents withdrew their shares of compensation. b). As per the version of the petitioner, after death of her husband respondents necked her out from their house, in the month of November, 2002, she has no means to lead her life and as such, she went to her parents house and during the life time of her husband, he took LIC policy in which her name is shown as nominee, but the respondents withdrew the said amounts without informing to her and neglected to see her welfare, they have movable and immovable properties and have source of income and being parents-in- law, they have to pay maintenance to her. And, in the cross examination, she categorically admitted about the health condition of respondent No.2 and the medical expenses that are to be incurred by the respondents and that she has not filed any proof to show that her husband took policy for Rs.2,00,000/- and in which her name is shown as nominee. However, she has filed Ex.A1/encumbrance certificate dated 23.10.2007 and Ex.A2/registered sale deed dated 26.12.1981 and they reveal that respondent No.1 and others alienated the property vide sale deed dated 26.12.1981. Admittedly, the sale deed was executed very long prior to the marriage of the petitioner with the son of the respondents. c). PW.2 who is elder of the village also stated on the same lines of evidence of PW1 and in the cross examination, he pleaded ignorance in 6 DEV, J & SUN, J FCA_194_2009 respect of health condition of respondent No.2 and denied the suggestions in respect of house properties in the name of petitioner and that the petitioner failed to lookafter the welfare of the respondents, during their old age. As against the evidence of petitioner, it came in the evidence of RW.1 that his son did not take any policy for Rs.2 lakhs and had he really taken any policy by showing the petitioner as nominee, the LIC authorities ought to have released the amounts in favour of the petitioner, his wife has been suffering from leprosy and her leg also amputated, he has been incurring expenses to cure her decease and after death of their son, respondents received compensation for the untimely death of their son and he also received compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- and the petitioner failed to look after their welfare and further, denied suggestion in respect of properties which are standing in his name. d). RW.2 stated on the same lines of evidence of RW.1 and he had further stated in the cross examination that husband of the petitioner used to work as TV mechanic and also manage fire wood shop and van. RW.3, who is another marriage elder having stated on the same lines of RW.1, pleaded ignorance with respect to the properties of respondent No.1 and income which is being yielded out of the said properties. e). The law on the grant of maintenance of Hindus has been codified by enacting the Hindu Maintenance and Adoption Act, 1956 (herein after referred to as „the Act‟) and the act provides for the adoption as well for the maintenance. The adoption part is dealt under Chapter II of the Act, whereas Chapter III of the Act provides for maintenance to the dependants of a Hindu under Sections 18 to 28. 7 DEV, J & SUN, J FCA_194_2009 f). The “dependants” have been defined under Section 21 of the Act inter alia to include the following relatives of the deceased: “(i) to (vi) ……… (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) to …” g). A plain reading of the above definition of the dependants makes it crystal clear that the relatives of the deceased, namely, “any widow of his son” would be a dependant provided she is unable to maintain herself from her husband‟s estate or from her son or her daughter‟s estate and in the case of grandson‟s widow, from her father-in-law‟s estate. In the present case at hand, the petitioner does not have any children and her husband succumbed to the injuries sustained in an accident, without leaving any properties. So she comes to the definition of dependent as per Section 21 of the Act. h). Section 19 of Hindu Maintenance and Adoption Act, 1956 reads thus: 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 remarriage of the daughter-in-law. 8 DEV, J & SUN, J FCA_194_2009 i). As per the version of the petitioner, she has not married again and have no sources of income to lead her life. Admittedly, within three years of the marriage, she became widow and it is not the version of the respondents that the petitioner married again. Section 19 of the Act provides for the maintenance of “widowed daughter-in-law” of the deceased Hindu. It simply contemplates that a Hindu wife is entitled to be maintained after the death of her husband by her father-in-law. Thus, it casts an obligation upon the father- in-law to maintain his daughter-in-law. The said obligation subsists only during the lifetime of the father-in-law as the aforesaid provision nowhere contemplates that the daughter-in-law would be entitled to maintenance from the estate of the father-in-law. In other words Section 19 contemplates for the maintenance of the daughter-in-law during the lifetime of father-in-law, whereas, Section 22 contemplates “maintenance of dependants” including “widowed daughter- in-law” from the estate of her father-in-law meaning thereby that a claim under Section 22 can be raised only after the death of the father-in-law. As per Section 19 of the Act respondent No.1 alone is liable to pay compensation but respondent No.2 who is mother in law of the petitioner. So to that extent order of the trial Court is liable to be set aside. j). All the factors on a cumulative consideration suggest that the self serving statements of respondent No.1 do not inspire the confidence and the same appears to be far from the truth, and in the light of the significant probabilities showed on behalf of the petitioner, case of the respondent No.1 pales into insignificance. So, it can safely be held that the petitioner has established her case to grant maintenance. Hence, the point No.1 is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the petitioner. 10.POINT No.2: This court has gone through the order and decree of the trial court and for the reasons assigned by this court and upon re-appraisal of the facts and 9 DEV, J & SUN, J FCA_194_2009 evidence, this court gave finding in point No.1 in favour of the petitioner and against respondent No.1. The trial court has given justifiable reasons to grant maintenance by the respondent No.1 and as such, order and decree passed by the trial Court against respondent No.1 are sustainable in facts and law and to that effect no interference is required by this court. Hence, this point is answered accordingly. 11.POINT No.3: In the result, and in view of the findings in Point Nos.1 and 2, this appeal in respect of respondent No.1 is dismissed, confirming the order and decree dated 18.12.2008 passed in O.P.No.458 of 2005 by the learned Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam. Further, the said order and decree in respect of respondent No.2 is be and hereby set aside as respondent No.2 is not liable to pay maintenance. There are no order of costs. As a sequel thereto, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND ______________________________ JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM 06.08.2026 knl Whether the order is : ✓ Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No ✓ Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No