Savitri Pandey Vs Prem Chandra Pandey on 8 Jan 2002

Posted on March 13, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court held as follows, (with regards to Cruelty)

From Para 6,

6. Cruelty has not been defined under the Act but in relation to matrimonial matters it is contemplated as a conduct of such type which endangers the living of the petitioner with the respondent. Cruelty consists of acts which are dangerous to life, limb or health. Cruelty for the purpose of the Act means where one spouse has so treated the other and manifested such feelings towards her or him as to have inflicted bodily injury, or to have caused reasonable apprehension of bodily injury, suffering or to have injured health. Cruelty may be physical or mental. Mental cruelty is the conduct of other spouse which causes mental suffering or fear to the matrimonial life of the other. “Cruelty”, therefore, postulates a treatment of the petitioner with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in his or her mind that it would be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the other party. Cruelty, however, has to be distinguished from the ordinary wear and tear of family life. It cannot be decided on the basis of the sensitivity of the petitioner and has to be adjudged on the basis of the course of conduct which would, in general, be dangerous for a spouse to live with the other.

From Para 19, (with regards to the time limit to file an appeal against an Order of Family Court)

At this stage we would like to observe that the period of limitation prescribed for filing the appeal under Section 28(4) is apparently inadequate which facilitates the frustration of the marriages by the unscrupulous litigant spouses. In a vast country like ours, the powers under the Act are generally exercisable by the District Court and the first appeal has to be filed in the High Court. The distance, the geographical conditions, the financial position of the parties and the time required for filing a regular appeal, if kept in mind, would certainly show that the period of 30 days prescribed for filing the appeal is insufficient and inadequate. In the absence of appeal, the other party can solemnise the marriage and attempt to frustrate the appeal right of the other side as appears to have been done in the instant case. We are of the opinion that a minimum period of 90 days may be prescribed for filing the appeal against any judgment and decree under the Act and any marriage solemnised during the aforesaid period be deemed to be void. Appropriate legislation is required to be made in this regard. We direct the Registry that the copy of this judgment may be forwarded to the Ministry of Law & Justice for such action as it may deem fit to take in this behalf.

This judgment led to the passing of amendment here.

Savitri Pandey Vs Prem Chandra Pandey on 8 Jan 2002

Citations: [AIR 2002 SUPREME COURT 591], [2002 (2) SCC 73], [2002 AIR SCW 182], [2002 ALL. L. J. 355], [2002 ALL CJ 1 122], [2002 (2) SRJ 553], [2002 (1) SLT 103], [(2002) 1 ALL WC 472], [(2002) 1 JCR 377 (SC)], [2002 (1) LRI 28], [(2002) 1 JT 25 (SC)], [2002 (1) UJ (SC) 273], [(2002) 1 MARRILJ 277], [2002 (1) ALL CJ 22], [2002 UJ(SC) 1 273], [2002 (1) BLJR 378], [(2002) 3 CIVILCOURTC 318], [(2002) 1 RECCIVR 719], [(2002) 6 BOM CR 511], [(2002) 1 HINDULR 338], [(2002) 2 MAHLR 263], [(2002) 2 PAT LJR 256], [(2002) 2 JLJR 135], [(2002) 2 GUJ LR 1369], [(2002) 1 KER LJ 193], [(2002) WLC(SC)CVL 116], [(2002) 1 SCALE 33], [(2002) 1 RAJ LW 183], [(2002) 3 GUJ LH 470], [(2002) 1 DMC 177], [(2002) 1 ANDH LT 55], [(2002) 1 CURCC 7], [(2002) 22 OCR 280], [(2002) 1 UC 299], [(2002) 1 SCJ 6], [(2002) 46 ALL LR 465], [(2002) 2 CAL HN 50], [(2002) 2 BLJ 177], [(2002) 1 SUPREME 90], [(2002) MATLR 224], [2002 (1) MARR LJ 277], [(2002) 4 CURCRIR 254], [(2002) 1 CAL HN 124], [(2002) 1 ALLCRILR 658], [(2002) 1 CALLT 32]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/325522/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56e0f1ad607dba38965f8bcd

https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/browse/Case?caseId=002002900000&title=savitri-pandey-vs-prem-chandra-pandey

https://lawfyi.io/savitri-pandey-vs-prem-chandra-pandey-on-8-january-2002-case-summary/

https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/savitri-pandey-vs-prem-chandra-pandey

http://roundup.manupatra.in/trans/viewdoc.aspx?i=ptiDy4oUEz7W4RhahAaT6h93RFUeTV40hI1vo81W7g5uCfRP5tL0pktJVchar(43)F5g3qk&id=zwKDa4S8QbBCBSkXPhUPwY5CqQmaAQ/9fT/TmfIpDN9bjNPkWKzs5n8Hchar(43)U/Dqe21io8GIp7cHk/RGFLXdXEB6A==

Index of Divorce judgments is here.

Gaurav Nighawan Vs Shweta on 05 Jan 2024

Posted on March 13, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Delhi High Court held as follows,

From Paras 19 and 20,

19. With regard to Section 13(1) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the pertinent observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bipin Chandra Jaisinghbhai Shah Vs. Prabhavati 1956 SCC OnLine SC 15 are as under:-
“Thus the quality of permanence is one of the essential elements which differentiates desertion from wilful separation. If a spouse abandons the other spouse in a state of temporary passion, for example, anger or disgust, without intending permanently to cease cohabitation, it will not amount to desertion. For the offence of desertion, so far as the deserting spouse is concerned, two essential conditions must be there, namely, (1) the factum of separation, and (2) the intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an end (animus deserendi). Similarly two elements are essential so far as the deserted spouse is concerned : (1) the absence of consent, and (2) absence of conduct giving reasonable cause to the spouse leaving the matrimonial home to form the necessary intention aforesaid.”
20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bipinchandra Jaisinghbhai Shah(Supra) has further observed that once it is found that one of the spouses has been in desertion, the presumption is that the desertion has continued and that is not necessary for the deserted spouse actually to take steps to bring the deserting spouse back to the matrimonial home.

Finally in Paras 23 and 24,

23. Applying the provisions of Section 13(ib) of the Act, we find that merely within two months of marriage between the parties, the respondent-wife left the matrimonial home. Neither she made any complaint against the appellant nor did she file petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking Restitution of Conjugal Rights. No doubt, even appellant has not been able to show before the learned Family Court and even in this Court that he had made any concrete efforts to bring back his wife to the matrimonial home. However, when he approached the court seeking divorce, despite service through publication, the respondent did not appear before the learned Family Court to contest the allegations made by the appellant. The respondent has even abstained herself from appearing before this Court despite service through the SHO concerned. Relevantly, since the marriage in the year 2015 till the year 2023, the respondent has not made any effort to join company of appellant-husband. There is no doubt that respondent has quietly chosen to stay apart from appellant and broken the bond of marriage, though not legally but otherwise.
24. In the light of afore-noted facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that respondent has wilfully deserted the appellant and so, appellant is entitled to get benefit of provision of Section 13(1) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The marriage between the parties is thus, dissolved and a decree of divorce is granted. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.

Gaurav Nighawan Vs Shweta on 05 Jan 2024

Index of Divorce judgments is here.

Rajkumar Amruthrao Guddadigi Vs Shilaja Rajkumar Guddadigi on 04 Jan 2024

Posted on March 12, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single (Dr) judge of the Bombay High Court held as follows,

From Para 10, (Enjoy the perversity)

10. The perusal of the order impugned indicates that the trial Judge has taken into account all the facts necessary to be considered for fair adjudication and determination of quantum of interim maintenance. The trial Judge has applied all the settled parameters while doing so. The Petitioner/husband is a qualified Engineer and is suitably employed. His standard of living is fairly modest. The Respondent/wife is also a qualified MBA but unable to hold down a permanent job as she is single handedly looking after a ten years old. The mere fact that she is residing in the matrimonial home is not a pretext to disentitle her to a reasonable amount of maintenance. She still needs some amount towards food, medicine, clothes and educational expenses for the child. Thus, considering the status of the parties, reasonable needs of the wife and minor son are parameters to be considered while determining the sufficiency and the reasonableness of the quantum of interim maintenance to be adjudged so that the wife is able to maintain herself and the minor son in reasonable comfort. The quantum of maintenance awarded by the trial Judge is neither oppressive nor is it unendurable for the Petitioner/husband and there is no hardship caused to him. The amount of Rs.3,000/- is also reasonable for litigation expenses and barely sufficient for her to defend herself in the divorce Petition initiated by her husband. In view of the same, no interference is required in the order impugned herein. The quantum of interim maintenance, as adjudged by the trial Court, is reasonable and does not suffer from any infirmity. The Petition is, thus, dismissed.

Rajkumar Amruthrao Guddadigi Vs Shilaja Rajkumar Guddadigi on 04 Jan 2024

Index of HMA judgments here.

Nirman Sagar Vs Monika Sagar Chaudhari and Anr on 01 Apr 2022

Posted on March 12, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior bench held as follows,

From Para 9,

9. Thus, the proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. may be taken against any person in any district where he or his wife resides or where he last resided with her wife or as the case may be with the mother of the illegitimate child. It is not the case of the respondent no.1 that she resided with the applicant for the last time in Gwalior.Her contention is that Gwalior is her permanent address as her parents are residing there and she occasionally visits her parents and,therefore, the Family Court, Gwalior has a jurisdiction to entertain the application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The stand taken bythe respondent no.1 cannot be appreciated as the word “resides” cannot be equated with places where flying visits are made. It is not the case of respondent no.1 that at the time of filing of the applicationunder Section 125 of Cr.P.C. she was posted in Gwalior and the Family Court, Gwalior would not lose jurisdiction merely on the ground that subsequently she was transferred, but the case of respondent no.1 is that from the year 2011 onwards she is posted inDelhi. Flying visits to a particular place with a solitary intention to confer jurisdiction would not satisfy the provisions of Section 126 (1)of Cr.P.C.
10. Thus, it is clear that a casual stay or a flying visit to a particular place cannot be treated as a part of the word “reside”.

From Paras 14-15,

14. Thus, it is clear that it is the contention of the respondent no.1 that her daughter is residing with her. Admittedly, respondent no.2, daughter of respondent no.1, is prosecuting her studies in Delhi. Thus, it is clear that both the respondents no.1 and 2 are residing in Delhi where respondent no.1 is serving in Airport Authority of India and is posted as ATC. The respondent no.1 is serving in Delhi from the year 2011. The address which has been shown by them in the cause-title has been given with a solitary intention to give territorial jurisdiction to the Family Court, Gwalior and in fact the Family Court, Gwalior has no territorial jurisdiction to try the application in the light of Section 126 of Cr.P.C.
15. Accordingly, order dated 25/10/2021 passed by the Additional Judge to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior in case No.234/2019 (new no.367/2021) is hereby set aside. The application filed by the respondents under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Gwalior is held to be without jurisdiction. However, liberty is granted to the respondents that if they so desire, they can file an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Courts having jurisdiction in the light of Section 126 of Cr.P.C.

Nirman Sagar Vs Monika Sagar Chaudhari and Anr on 01 Apr 2022

Index of Maintenance cases u/s 125 Cr.P.C. is here.

Ram Prasad Sahni Vs Punita Devi and Ors on 22 Jun 2017

Posted on March 12, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Patna High Court held as follows,

Now, the question arises as to whether the applicant has been able to prove that her husband left behind the estate which she has inherited but is not in possession and whether the father-in-law is in possession of such estate? For better appreciation of this, the evidence led by the respective sides requires to be analyzed. The applicant-respondent no.1 has examined herself as AW 2. Though she has stated that she does not have any means to maintain herself and has also stated that the father-in-law has 6 kathas of agricultural land and pond and he is running a business of fishery and Makhana and also an orchard and from the aforesaid he is earning Rs.10,000/- per month, if it is compared to the statement made in her application, to some extent, it falsifies the same as she has categorically stated in paragraph no.13 of the application that her father-in-law‟s earning is about Rs.35,000/- to Rs.40,000/- per month. On the point of torture and being thrown out of the house, a question was asked in the cross-examination as to whether on such act done by the father-in-law with the help of his daughter and son-in-law, she filed any complaint case or first information report to which she denied. In the cross-examination, she further states that there is no land or any property in the name of her deceased-husband and she could not show any document or paper in support of her case that the father-in-law is possessing land or orchard and pond etc. She also denied that she could produce any document in support of her contention regarding the monthly income of the father-in-law. She has admitted that she is working as Angawari Sahika and is getting Rs.700/- per month. Now it is interesting to peruse the deposition of AW 1 who happens to be the father of the applicant – respondent no.1. He, in his examination-in-chief, has also stated the factum of marriage, the death of his son-in-law and also that she does not have any means to maintain herself and her children and also that she has been driven away forcibly after assault by the father-in-law. He has categorically stated that Ram Prasad Sahani, i.e., appellant-opposite party has 26 kathas of land and orchard and his earning is Rs.30,000/- to Rs.35,000/- from the aforesaid property. However, in the cross-examination, he has admitted that though his daughter was driven away but he and his daughter did not file any case and there was no property in the name of his deceased son-in-law and also admitted the fact that his Samdhi, i.e., father-in-law of his daughter, is pulling rickshaw for his livelihood. He has also stated that he does not have any document regarding any landed property of his Samdhi and at the same time, has also admitted that his daughter was working as Anganwari Sahiaka in his village and she is doing so for the last 15 years which demolishes his statement in examination-in-chief that she does not have any earning to maintain herself.
The appellant, who has been examined as OPW 1, has stated in his Chief that immediately after the death of his son, the daughter-in-law along with her children went to her Naihar. He does not have any landed property or pond etc. He is only having one thatched house and is having one minor daughter who is to be married but he does not have any means for her marriage and his income is Rs.50/- to Rs.60/- daily. Thus, he is unable to maintain his daughter-in-law, grandsons and granddaughter. In the cross-examination, he has stated that his son, though he was a student, used to do tuition to maintain him and his family. From the perusal of the aforesaid, it is apparent that the applicant as well as her father could not withstand the test of cross-examination and her case was demolished. They could not spell out the details of any landed property. Her father denied in the cross-examination that his son-in-law had any landed property. Thus, it has to be understood that her husband died without leaving any estate. He has also admitted that his Samdhi, i.e., father-in-law of his daughter earns his livelihood by pulling a rickshaw and does not have sufficient means to pay the maintenance amount. Thus, the case of the applicant-petitioner-respondent no.1 does not withstand the legal test under Section 19 or Section 22 of the Act as apparently there is no estate which she has inherited from her husband and even father-in-law is not having sufficient income to maintain her.
Though the materials were available as discussed above, the court below has also not recorded any finding as to whether the opposite party no.1 has sufficient means to maintain herself or not as it has come in the evidence led by the parties that she is working as Aganwari Sahaika for the last 15 years. It is also apparent from the order dated 04.02.2011, passed in the maintenance case that at the time of reconciliation, the father-in-law was ready to take her back but it was the applicant who refused to go with him though she has given a reason that there was threat upon her life but in view of the fact that the said action could not be proved by her, that would also be meaningless.
Unfortunately, the court below without recording any finding whether the husband has left any estate for the applicant or whether her father-in-law has sufficient income or not, has simply directed him without any rhyme and reason to pay maintenance of Rs.1,000/- for applicant no.1 and Rs.300/- per month towards maintenance of her children without holding as to whether the father-in-law is liable in law and in the facts and circumstances to pay such amount or not.

Ram Prasad Sahni Vs Punita Devi and Ors on 22 Jun 2017

Citations:

Other sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/114233990/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5e96f0b24653d05364588a37

Index of judgments under HAMA 1956 are here.

Sunita and Anr Vs Pyare Lal and Ors on 08 Nov 2010

Posted on March 12, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court held as follows,

In view of above admitted and proved facts, the appellants have no right to claim maintenance from respondents no. 1 and 2 or right of residence in the disputed house. Under Section 18 of the Act, a Hindu wife can claim maintenance from her husband. However, under this provision, appellant no. 1 cannot claim maintenance from respondents no. 1 and 2, who are parents-in-law of appellant no. 1.
Under Section 19 of the Act, a Hindu wife can claim maintenance from her father-in-law after the death of her husband, provided and to the extent that she is unable to maintain herself and this right shall not be enforceable if father-in-law has no means to do so from coparcenary property. In the instant case, respondent no. 1 – father-in-law is not possessed of any coparcenary property so as to provide maintenance to appellant no. 1. Consequently, under Sections 18 and 19 of the Act, appellant no. 1 is not entitled to claim any maintenance from respondents no. 1 and 2.
As regards appellant no. 2, under Section 20 of the Act, she is not entitled to claim any maintenance from respondents no. 1 and 2, who are her grandparents because under this provision, a Hindu is bound to maintain his or her children or aged or infirm parents. Even under Sections 21 and 22 of the Act, appellant no. 2 is not entitled to claim maintenance from respondents no. 1 and 2 because respondents no. 1 and 2 have not inherited any estate from their deceased son Anil Kumar. Even otherwise, respondents no. 1 and 2 have no source of income except meager pension of respondent no. 1, who is retired at present. On the other hand, appellants have sufficient means to maintain themselves as appellant no. 1 has got job as Clerk in Municipal Corporation, Delhi and is also receiving family pension of her deceased husband. Appellant no. 1 has also been given a house by her own father. Appellant no. 1 can also seek maintenance from her own father.

Sunita and Anr Vs Pyare Lal and Ors on 08 Nov 2010

Citations:

Other sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/186634126/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56b493d3607dba348f008648

https://vlex.in/vid/sunita-and-another-vs-572334286

Index of judgments under HAMA 1956 are here.

Satpal Vs Suman and Ors on 31 May 2019

Posted on March 11, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court, relying on Vimalben, held as follows,

In the case of Vimalben Ajitbhai Patel (Supra), the Supreme Court has held that “maintenance of a married wife, during subsistence of marriage, is on the husband. It is a personal obligation. The obligation tomaintain a daughter-in-law arises only when the husband has died. Such an objection can also be met from the properties of which the husband is a co-sharer and not otherwise. For invoking the said provision, the husband has a share in the property. The property in the name of the mother-in-law canneither be a subject matter of attachment nor during the life time of the husband, his personal liability to maintain his wife can be directed to beenforced against such property”. While referring to Section 4 of the Act, the Supreme Court has further held that “Section 4 provides for a non obstanteclause. In terms of the said provision itself any obligation on the part of in-laws in terms of any text, rule or interpretation of Hindu Law or any customor usage as part of law before the commencement of the Act, are no longer valid. In view of the non obstante clause contained in Section 4, theprovisions of the Act alone are applicable. Sections 18 and 19 prescribe the statutory liabilities in regard to maintenance of wife by her husband andonly on his death upon the father-in-law, Mother-in-law, thus, cannot be fastened with any legal liability to maintain her daughter-in-law from herown property or otherwise”.

But subsequently in same page,

Insofar as awarding maintenance under Sections 21 and 22 of the Act is concerned, this Court while delivering a judgment in the case of “Nachhattar Singh Vs. Satinder Kaur and others” 2007(4) RCR (Civil) 826 has held that the father-in-law is liable to maintain grandchildren if they are unable to maintain themselves and the income of their mother/father is inadequate for their maintenance.
Thus in view thereof, we are of the considered opinion that both the minor children, who are the grandchildren of the appellant-Satpal, have rightly been awarded the amount of maintenance.

Satpal Vs Suman and Ors on 31 May 2019

Index of judgments under HAMA 1956 are here.

Laxmi and Anr Vs Shyam Pratap and Anr on 28 Apr 2022

Posted on March 11, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Delhi High Court held as follows,

From Paras 11-13,

11. The daughter-in-law can claim maintenance from her father-in-law provided he has inherited some estate of her husband. The appellant has failed to disclose any estate of her husband having devolved upon the respondents. Not only this, the respondent No.1 father-in-law has already expired. Now only respondent No.2 mother-in-law survives and the appellants cannot as a matter of right, claim any maintenance from her.
12. Section 22 of the Act provides for maintenance of dependents of the deceased by the heirs of the deceased, but this is subject to the condition that they having inherited the estate from the deceased.
13. As already noted above, no estate has been inherited either by the mother or the sister of the deceased husband of the appellant No.1 from which any maintenance can be claimed by the appellants. There is no infirmity in the impugned order of the learned Family Judge. The appeal is hereby dismissed.

Laxmi and Anr Vs Shyam Pratap and Anr on 28 Apr 2022

Index of judgments under HAMA 1956 are here.

Suresh Tiwari and Anr Vs Madhu Tiwari on 31 Jul 2023

Posted on March 11, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Delhi High Court, relying on Vimalben and Laxmi decisions, held as follows,

From Paras 4-6,

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent, while not disputing the above submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the respondent has now become aware of certain coparcenary properties in the possession of the petitioners. He submits that, in fact, there are certain properties of the late husband of the respondent which are now being held by the petitioners. He submits that he shall be moving an appropriate application before the learned Family Court to bring on record the above facts.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners disputes the assertions of the learned counsel for the respondent that there are any coparcenary properties held by the petitioner no.1 or that there are any properties of the late husband of the respondent being held by the petitioners.
6. Be that as it may, the Impugned Order, which grants interim maintenance to the respondent, cannot be sustained.

From Paras 8-9,

8. This Court in Laxmi & Anr. (supra) has reiterated that a daughter-in-law can claim maintenance from her father-in-law, provided that the father-in-law has inherited some estate of her husband. In absence of any such disclosure, the daughter-in-law cannot maintain such claim against the father-in-law; in any case, claim cannot be maintained against the mother-in-law.
9. In Satpal (supra), the Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court also reiterated that for invoking the provision of Section 19 of the Act, the widowed daughter-in-law has to show that the father-in-law has coparcenary property in his possession. Such claim will not lie against the salary of the father-in-law or against his self-acquired property.

Finally, from Paras 10-11,

10. In the present case, as the petition filed by the respondent stands today, there is no averment of the petitioner no.1 holding any coparcenary property against which the respondent can maintain her claim under Section 19 of the Act. The Impugned Order also does not give any such finding. The Impugned Order, therefore, cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside.
11. As far as the plea of the learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent has now become aware of coparcenary property in the possession of the petitioner no.1 and/or that the petitioners are holding properties belonging to the late husband of the respondent, in absence of such averments before the learned Family Court, they cannot be taken cognizance of at this stage by this Court. The respondent shall be free to move an appropriate application in this regard before the learned Family Court, and the same shall be considered by the learned Family Court remaining uninfluenced by any observations made in the present order.

Suresh Tiwari and Anr Vs Madhu Tiwari on 31 Jul 2023

Index of judgments under HAMA 1956 are here.

Maintenance Judgments under Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1956

Posted on March 11, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court:

Vimalben Ajitbhai Patel Vs Vatslabeen Ashokbhai Patel And others on 14 March, 2008 [In Para 24, held that mother-in-law cannot be fastened with any liability of maintenance towards widowed daughter-in-law]

Delhi High Court:

Laxmi and Anr Vs Shyam Pratap and Anr on 28 Apr 2022 [failed to disclose any estate of her husband having devolved upon the respondents; Father-in-law expired and the appellants cannot as a matter of right, claim any maintenance from mother-in-law]
Suresh Tiwari and Anr Vs Madhu Tiwari on 31 Jul 2023 [No averment of the father-in-law holding any coparcenary property against which the daughter-in-law can maintain her claim under Section 19 of the Act and furthermore Impugned Order also does not give any such finding]

Patna High Court:

Ram Prasad Sahni Vs Punita Devi and Ors on 22 Jun 2017 [Trail Court failed to adjudicate whether the husband has left any estate for the applicant or whether her father-in-law has sufficient income or not]

Punjab and Haryana High Court:

Sunita and Anr Vs Pyare Lal and Ors on 08 Nov 2010 [Under Section 18 of the Act, a Hindu wife can claim maintenance from her husband but not from her in-laws. Under Section 19 of the Act, a Hindu wife can claim maintenance from her father-in-law after the death of her husband, provided and to the extent that she is unable to maintain herself and this right shall not be enforceable if father-in-law has no means to do so from coparcenary property. Under Sections 21 and 22 of the Act, grandchild is not entitled to claim maintenance from grandparents because they have not inherited any estate from their deceased son]
Satpal Vs Suman and Ors on 31 May 2019 [Mother-in-law cannot be made liable to maintenance to windowed daughter-in-law; grandchildren are entitled for maintenance]

Index of all Maintenance judgments is here.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Author: ShadesOfKnife

Savitri Pandey Vs Prem Chandra Pandey on 8 Jan 2002

Gaurav Nighawan Vs Shweta on 05 Jan 2024

Rajkumar Amruthrao Guddadigi Vs Shilaja Rajkumar Guddadigi on 04 Jan 2024

Nirman Sagar Vs Monika Sagar Chaudhari and Anr on 01 Apr 2022

Ram Prasad Sahni Vs Punita Devi and Ors on 22 Jun 2017

Sunita and Anr Vs Pyare Lal and Ors on 08 Nov 2010

Satpal Vs Suman and Ors on 31 May 2019

Laxmi and Anr Vs Shyam Pratap and Anr on 28 Apr 2022

Suresh Tiwari and Anr Vs Madhu Tiwari on 31 Jul 2023

Maintenance Judgments under Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1956