Civil Revision 3157 of 2007 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision 3157 of 2007 Date of Decision: 11.8.2009 Gurbachan Singh ......Petitioner Versus Jasvir Kaur .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Sandeep Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). Challenge in the present revision is to the order dated 9.4.2009 passed by the learned trial Court, granting Rs.1000/- per month as interim maintenance against the present petitioner, father-in-law of the respondent. The sole argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in terms of Section 19 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, the petitioner is not liable to pay the maintenance as the respondent is entitled to maintenance from the estate of her husband or her father or mother. The said argument was considered by this Court in Balbir Kaur v. Harinder Kaur, 2003(1) RCR (Civil) 624, wherein it was held to the following effect:- “13. Section 19 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as `the Civil Revision 3157 of 2007 (2) Act') deals with the right of maintenance of a widowed daughter-in-law. Whether married before or after the commencement of the Act, she can claim maintenance only if she is unable to maintain herself from her own sources or out of the estate of her husband or her father or mother or from her son or daughter, if any, or his or her estate. The right to claim maintenance from the father-in-law, in the circumstances stated above is, however, conditional upon the father-in-law having in possession of copercenary property out of which widowed daughter-in-law has not obtained any share. Though under the Act, the right to claim maintenance by widowed daughter-in-law against her father-in-law is limited to the extent of coparcenary property in the hand of father-in-law, out of which widowed daughter-in-law has not taken any share, but under the old Hindu Law, prevailing before the enactment of the Act, this right of maintenance to the widowed daughter-in-law against the self acquired property of her father-in-law, was available. This right is still available to the widowed daughter-in- law of the pre-deceased son against the self-acquired property of her father-in-law, as this right shall not cease to be in force because the same is not inconsistent with any provision contained in the Act. Thus, the widowed daughter-in-law of a pre-deceased son is entitled to claim right of maintenance against the self acquired Civil Revision 3157 of 2007 (3) property of her father-in-law, whether it is in his hand or in the hand of his heir or donee.” In view of the aforesaid judgment, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order passed by the trial Court, which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) 11.8.2009 JUDGE ds