Civil Revision No. 7693 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7693 of 2009 Date of decision : December 14, 2012 Krishan Sarup Chopra ....Petitioner versus Anchal and others ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. RS Ahluwalia, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Aman Dhir, Advocate, for the respondents L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Defendant Krishan Sarup Chopra has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 10.8.2010 Annexure P/5 passed by the trial court thereby directing defendant-petitioner to pay interim maintenance to the respondents/plaintiffs to the extent of ` 1500/- per month each for plaintiffs no. 1 and 2 and ` 2000/- per month for plaintiff no. 3. It is undisputed that plaintiffs no. 1 and 2 are daughters and plaintiff no. 3 is widow of Rajesh Chopra son of defendant-petitioner. Plaintiffs have filed suit for maintenance against defendant alleging that Civil Revision No. 7693 of 2009 -2- plaintiffs have no source of income and are unable to maintain themselves whereas the defendant is rich man having income by way of pension as retired Development Officer of Life Insurance Corporation and also having coparcenary property and two flats and is earning more than ` 30,000/- per month and also has some income by insurance work. The defendant denied his liability to maintain the plaintiffs stating that he neither has any coparcenary property nor he has inherited any property from his deceased son Rajesh Chopra and therefore, he is not liable to maintain the plaintiffs. It was also pleaded that plaintiffs have their own income. Learned trial court vide impugned order granted interim maintenance to the plaintiffs as noticed hereinbefore during the pendency of the suit. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant has filed this revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Counsel for the petitioner contended that according to section 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (in short, the Act), the defendant as father-in-law of plaintiff no. 3 is liable to pay maintenance to the plaintiffs from the income of coparcenary property only, but there is nothing on record to depict that defendant has any coparcenary property and therefore, the defendant is not liable to maintain his widowed daughter-in- Civil Revision No. 7693 of 2009 -3- law i.e. plaintiff no. 3. It was also contended that under section 22 of the Act, the defendant is liable to maintain his grand-daughters from deceased son i.e. plaintiffs no. 1 and 2 to the extent of only the estate, if any, inherited by him from his deceased son, but the defendant did not inherit any estate from his deceased son and therefore, the defendant is not liable to pay any maintenance to the plaintiffs no. 1 and 2 also. It was also submitted that in view of section 4 of the Act, provisions of the Act have over-riding effect and old Hindu law has ceased to have effect with respect to any matter for which provision has been made in the Act. In support of these contentions, counsel for the petitioner has relied on judgment of Bombay High Court in Venubai and others versus Laxman Lahanuji Rambhad and others, 2008(4) RCR (Civil)664; judgment of Madras High Court in Animuthu versus Gandhiammal and another, 1977 AIR (Madras) 372, judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vimlaben Ajitbhai Patel versus Vatslaben Ashokbhai Patel and others, 2008(4) SCC 649 and also judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Jal Kaur versus Pala Singh, AIR 1961 Punjab 391. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents relying on judgments of this Court in Balbir Kaur and another versus Harindere Kaur and others, AIR 2003 Punjab and Haryana 174 and Nachhattar Singh versus Satinder Kaur and others, 2007(4) RCR (Civil) 826 Civil Revision No. 7693 of 2009 -4- contended that even independently of the provisions of the Act, the defendant is liable to provide maintenance to the plaintiffs being daughters and widow of defendant's deceased son. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Strictly speaking, case of the plaintiffs may not be covered by sections 19 and 22 of the Act if the defendant has no coparcenary property and has not inherited any estate from his deceased son. However, in the cases of Jal Kaur (supra) and Nachhattar Singh (supra) liability of grand-father to maintain his grand-children from a deceased son has been held independently of section 22 of the Act. In view thereof, the defendant is liable to provide maintenance to the plaintiffs no. 1 and 2 who are daughters of deceased son of the defendant i.e. grand-daughters of the defendant. Similarly, in view of judgment of this Court in the case of Balbir Kaur (supra), the defendant is liable to provide maintenance to his widowed daughter-in-law plaintiff no. 3 also, independently of section 19 of the Act. Contention raised by counsel for the petitioner on the basis of section 4 of the Act cannot be accepted because in the case of Balbir Kaur (supra), it was held that since liability of father-in-law to maintain his widowed daughter-in-law is not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, the defendant is liable to maintain his widowed daughter-in-law. Thus, the defendant is liable to provide maintenance to all the three plaintiffs. Civil Revision No. 7693 of 2009 -5- Judgment in the case of Jal Kaur (supra) goes against the petitioner in so far as maintenance for plaintiffs no. 1 and 2 grand-daughters of defendant is concerned. As regards maintenance for plaintiff no. 3, maintenance to her also has to be provided in view of judgment of this Court in the case of Balbir Kaur (supra). As regards judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vimlaben Ajitbhai Patel (supra), it related to liability of mother-in-law to maintain her daughter-in-law. It does not relate to liability of father-in-law to maintain his widowed daughter-in-law or liability of grandfather to maintain his grand-daughters. So said judgment is not applicable to the instant case. Judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Venubai and others (supra) and judgment of Madras High Court in the case of Animuthu (supra) cannot prevail over judgments of this Court in the cases of Jal Kaur (supra), Nachhattar Singh (supra) and Balbir Kaur (supra). For the reasons aforesaid, I find that the defendant has been rightly directed to provide interim maintenance to the plaintiffs. There is no infirmity much less perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in impugned order of the trial court so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is meritless and is accordingly dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) December 14, 2012 Judge 'dalbir' Civil Revision No. 7693 of 2009 -6-