IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 420 OF 2009 Ramesh Kumar ….... Appel lant. Versus 1. Smt. Rajesh 2. Aryan 3. Alok ….…Respondents. Present:- Shri K.S. Verma, Advocate for the appellant. Shri M.S. Tyagi, Advocate for the respondents. Coram: Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Prafulla C. Pant, J. (Oral) 1. This appeal, preferred under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the order dated 22.4.2009, passed by Judge, Family Court, Haridwar in Suit No. 123 of 2008, whereby the said Court has passed an ex parte order directing the appellant Ramesh Kumar, under Section 19 read with Section 23 of the Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act, 1956, to pay ` 1,000/- as maintenance to each of the respondents (in all ` 3,000/- per month) by 10th of every month. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the record. 3. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no. 1 Smt. Rajesh got married to Yogesh, son of the appellant Ramesh Kumar, on 3.5.2004. Out of the said wedlock, two sons, namely, Aryan (present respondent no. 2) and Alok (present respondent no. 3) were born. 2 Unfortunately, on 8.10.2007 Yogesh (husband of respondent no. 1) died. The respondents moved an application under Section 19 read with Section 23 of the Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act, 1956 before the trial court claiming maintenance at the rate of ` 5,000/- per month from the appellant (father-in-law of respondent no. 1 and grandfather of respondent nos. 2 and 3). It is pleaded by the respondents before the trial court, in their application, that the appellant is in possession of the ancestral property, which included estate of the deceased. It is also pleaded by the respondents, before the trial court, that they are unable to maintain themselves. It is further pleaded that the appellant is employed with the Railway Department and earns around ` 12,000/- per month. It is also alleged that initially the appellant promised that he would get respondent no. 1 married with his younger son Lokesh (brother-in-law of respondent no. 1), but the same did not happen. The trial court issued notices to the opposite party (present appellant) but no one turned up to contest the application. In the circumstances, the trial court accepted the evidence in the form of affidavits, and after going through the evidence on record, passed an ex parte order directing the appellant to pay ` 1,000/- to each one of the present respondents as maintenance, under Section 19 read with Section 23 of the Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act, 1956. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 24.4.2009, passed by the Judge, Family Court, Haridwar, this appeal is filed on behalf of the father-in-law of respondent no. 1. 4. Admittedly, respondent no. 1 Smt. Rajesh got married to Yogesh, son of the present appellant, on 3.5.2004. It is also not disputed between the parties that 3 out of the said wedlock two sons, namely, Aryan and Alok (present respondent nos. 2 and 3) were born. It is also not denied that Yogesh (husband of respondent no. 1) died on 8.10.2007. The dispute before us is, whether the appellant is liable to pay maintenance to his widowed daughter-in-law and minor grand sons or not. 5. Before further discussion, we think it just and proper to quote the relevant provision relating to the case:- “19. Maintenance of widowed daughter- in-law. – (1) A Hindu wife, whether married before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be entitled to be maintained after the death of her husband by her father-in-law : Provided and to the extent that she is unable to maintain herself out of her own earnings or other property or, where she has no property of her own, is unable to obtain maintenance – (a) from the estate of her husband or her father or mother, or (b) from her son or daughter, if any, or his or her estate. 2. Any obligation under sub-section (1) shall not be enforceable if the father-in-law has not the means to do so from any coparcenary property in his possession out of which the daughter-in-law has not obtained any share, and any such obligation shall cease on the re- marriage of the daughter-in-law.” 4 6. From the above provision, it is clear that the father- in-law is liable to pay maintenance to widowed daughter- in-law, if she is unable to maintain herself, from the estate of her husband. The exception provided in the aforesaid Section in respect of the case is, where the father-in-law has no means to pay the maintenance. Section 23 of Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act, 1956 provides the guidelines for determination of amount of maintenance. Sub-section (3) of Section 23 of the Act reads as under :- “(3) In determining the amount of maintenance, if any, to be awarded to a dependant under this Act, regard shall be had to – (a) the net value of the estate of the deceased after providing for the payment of his debts; (b) the provision, if any, made under a will of the deceased in respect of the dependant; (c) the degree of relationship between the two; (d) the reasonable wants of the dependant; (e) the past relations between the dependant and the deceased; (f) the value of the property of the dependant and any income derived from such property, or from his or her earnings or from any other source; (g) the number of dependants entitled to maintenance under this Act.” 5 7. From the above provision of law, it is also clear that while determining the amount of maintenance, the Court has to keep in mind the value of the estate of deceased, degree of relationship between the claimant and the respondents, reasonable wants of the dependants, the earnings from other sources and number of dependants entitled to maintenance. In the present case, admittedly the parties are “Valmiki” (Sweepers community). It is not stated by the appellant before the trial court that the deceased (husband of respondent no. 1) did not leave any estate. Considering the economic status of the parties, and the relevant factors brought on the record, we find that direction to pay ` 750/- per month to the widowed daughter-in-law and ` 750/- per month to each of the grand sons of the appellant, would meet the ends of justice. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of modifying the quantum of maintenance payable by the appellant to the respondents at the rate of ` 750/- per month to each one of them (in all ` 2,250/- per month) from the date of the order passed by the trial court i.e. 22.4.2009. The arrears of the maintenance shall be paid by the appellant at the rate of ` 15,000/- per month in three months, and thereafter, the future maintenance shall be paid by the appellant to the respondents by 10th of every next month. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 25.11.2010 Avneet