IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941
Mat.Appeal.No.1115 OF 2014
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP 1671/2012 DATED 18-09-2014 OF FAMILY
COURT, NEDUMANGAD
APPELLANT:
SUJA MERINE THOMAS
(WRONGLY REFERRED TO AS ‘SUJA RAJENDRAN’ IN THE CAUSE
TITLE OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)D/O.THOMAS, AGED 47
YEARS,PADMA NIVAS, PANTHA POST,VEERANAKAVU VILLAGE
NOW R/A.JIJO NIVAS, T C 3/1126(11)SR NAGAR,
PATTOM P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
BY ADV. SRI.BINDU SREEKUMAR
RESPONDENT:
KRISHNA PILLAI
AGED 65 YEARS,S/O.NARAYANA PILLAI, MANIMANDIRAM,
PANTHA P O, VAZHICHAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
26.09.2019, THE COURT ON 19.12.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mat. Appeal No.1115 OF 2014
2
JUDGMENT
~~~~~~~~~
Dated this the 19th day of December, 2019
Nagaresh, J.
The appellant, who is widow of late Rajendran, has
filed this appeal aggrieved by the judgment in O.P.
No.1671/2012 of the Family Court, Nedumangad.
2. The appellant was wife of late Rajendran and the
respondent is her father-in-law. The respondent filed O.P.
No.1671/2012 in the Family Court seeking interim
maintenance. The respondent contended that he is 65 years
old and his son died. The son owned 1 Acre of rubber
plantation and 47 cents out of the said land was given by the
respondent to the son. The appellant is not paying any
amount to him towards maintenance. Apart from ₹8,000/- as
Mat. Appeal No.1115 OF 2014
3
monthly income from the plantation, his son was receiving
₹10,000/- per month from a building owned by the son at
Thiruvananthapuram. The appellant has sufficient income to
maintain him.
3. The appellant opposed the petition contending that
her husband was born to the first wife of the respondent and
the respondent was residing with his second wife and their
son, even when appellant’s husband was alive. The
respondent is a headload worker, having monthly income of
₹10,000/-. The appellant has no job or income and hence, she
is not liable to maintain the respondent. The appellant also
challenged the maintainability of the O.P.
4. The respondent filed chief affidavit. The respondent
did not adduce any oral evidence. The respondent produced
Ext.A1 Death Certificate, Exts.A2 and A3 Sale Deeds in
respect of property owned by his deceased son and Ext.A4,
copies of respondent’s treatment records.
5. On the question of maintainability of O.P., the
Family Court found that parties are admittedly Hindus and are
Mat. Appeal No.1115 OF 2014
4
governed by Hindu Adoptions and SectionMaintenance Act, 1956.
Hence, in view of Section 20 of the Act, the O.P. is
maintainable. On liability of the appellant, the Family Court
found that the appellant possesses sufficient property which
was inherited from respondent’s son. The Family Court held
that the respondent is entitled to get monthly maintenance.
The Family Court allowed the O.P. in part allowing the
respondent to recover monthly maintenance of ₹3,000/- from
04.08.2012 onwards, from the assets inherited by the
appellant.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that
the Family Court failed to advert to the specific pleadings in
the case, as to maintainability of the O.P. as well as
entitlement of the respondent. The respondent has not
established that he is unable to maintain himself, so as to
claim maintenance from the appellant. The Family Court
erroneously relied on Explanation to Section 20(3) of the
Hindu Adoptions and SectionMaintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the Act, 1956’) to hold that the O.P. is
Mat. Appeal No.1115 OF 2014
5
maintainable. The Family Court disposed of the Original
Petition itself after hearing the arguments on maintainability,
which has resulted in grave prejudice to her, contended the
appellant’s counsel.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant further
contended that it is the appellant, being the widowed daughter-
in-law, who should be paid maintenance by her father-in-law.
In view of Section 20 of the Act, 1956, the appellant is bound
to maintain her aged parents, but not her in-laws. Section 22
of the Act, 1956 mandates the heirs of a deceased Hindu to
maintain the dependents of a deceased Hindu out of the
estate inherited from the deceased. But, Section 21 defines
‘dependent’ to mean ‘his or her father’ or ‘his or her mother’
and the provision will not take in the in-laws. Hence, the
appellant is not legally liable to maintain the respondent, who
is her father-in-law.
8. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent.
9. Going through the pleadings and the materials
Mat. Appeal No.1115 OF 2014
6
available on record, we find that those are not sufficient to
make an adjudication on merits, of the issues involved in the
case. For the respondent – father-in-law, to sustain a claim of
maintenance, it is necessary that he should establish that the
appellant was a dependent of the deceased son. The
respondent in his Original Petition averred that he has no
means of income. To the said contention, the appellant in her
objection stated that she is afflicted with blindness, but the
respondent is very healthy and is still working as a headload
worker. The respondent has not specifically denied the said
statement in his testimony.
10. The respondent has produced photocopies of
medical reports which would go to show that he is ailing from
cardiac problems. But, the respondent has no case that he is
not in receipt of any terminal/pensionary benefits from
Headload Workers Welfare Board. The consistent stand of the
appellant is that the respondent was living with his second wife
and son born in that wedlock and hence, was dependent, if at
all, on them and not on her husband. The respondent has not
Mat. Appeal No.1115 OF 2014
7
totally denied this statement. Therefore, the materials on
record are not sufficient to prove that the respondent was a
dependent on the deceased husband of the appellant.
11. As regards the argument of the appellant that in the
light of Sections 20 and Section21 of the Act, 1956, she is liable to
maintain her dependent parents alone, the said argument
cannot stand the test of law. Section 20(1) states that the
heirs of a deceased Hindu are bound to maintain ‘the
dependents of the deceased’ out of the estate inherited by
them from the deceased. Section 21 defines ‘dependents’ and
states that ‘dependents’ 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
Mat. Appeal No.1115 OF 20148
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;
Mat. Appeal No.1115 OF 2014
9
(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.”
Therefore, the argument of the appellant that she is liable to
maintain her parents only and not her in-laws, cannot be
accepted. A widow governed by the Act, 1956 is liable to
maintain her father-in-law and mother-in-law if the latter were
dependent on the deceased son, from out of the estate
inherited by her from the deceased husband. In the case on
hand, the appellant has admittedly inherited properties of her
deceased husband.
12. In view of the facts emerging from the records of the
case, we are of the opinion that the evidence on record is not
sufficient to sustain the judgment of the Family Court
impugned in this appeal. Taking into account the age of the
respondent, we are of the view that the claim of the
respondent has to be adjudicated on merits, permitting the
parties to establish their respective cases by adducing
Mat. Appeal No.1115 OF 2014
10
sufficient evidence.
We, therefore, set aside the judgment dated
18.09.2014 in O.P. No.1671/2012 of the Family Court,
Nedumangad and remit the Original Petition back to the
Family Court for fresh consideration. The petitioner and
respondent in the O.P. will be at liberty to adduce additional
evidence, in support of all such contentions raised by them in
their O.P. and objection respectively, before the Family Court.
The parties shall appear before the Family Court,
Nedumangad, on 13.01.2020.
Sd/-
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE
aks/09.10.2019
