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.

Index of judgments under HAMA 1956 are here.