IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL FIRST APPEAL No. 72 of 2009 Km. Simran & Another (Being minors, both through her mother & natural guardian Smt. Sanjivani Verma) .…. Appellants Versus Brij Pal Verma …………… Respondent Mr. Anil Kumar Joshi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. M.S. Tyagi, Advocate for the respondent. ……………………… December 7, 2009 Coram: Hon. B.C. Kandpal, J. Hon. Dharam Veer, J. This appeal, preferred under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31.3.2009 passed by the Family Judge, Family Court, Haridwar in Suit No. 64 of 2006, Km. Simran & Another v. Brij Pal Verma whereby the claim of the appellants made under Section 22 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 for maintenance has been rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that on 12.2.1997, marriage of Smt. Sanjivani was solemnized as per Hindu rituals with Sri Manoj Verma S/o Sri Brij Pal Verma/respondent. Out of their wedlock, two daughters, namely, Km. Simran & Km. Mona Verma @ Anjali Verma (appellants) were born. Sri Manoj Verma, father of the appellants, died in a road accident on 19.2.2003. Smt. Sanjivani Verma got remarried to Sri Sanjay Verma in the year 2005 after the demise of her ex- husband Sri Manoj Verma. The appellants are minor and are living with their mother Smt. Sanjivani Verma and stepfather Sanjay Verma. The appellants moved an application through her mother Smt. Sanjivani Verma under Section 22 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 before the Family Court claiming maintenance of Rs. 5000/- each from their grandfather Brij Pal Verma/respondent asserting that they have no source of livelihood and they are unable maintain themselves, whereas their grandfather/respondent is liable to maintain them, who has monthly income of about Rs. 40,000/- per month besides ancestral properties and residential house. 3. Respondent contested the case before the court below by filing his written statement, wherein he denied the allegations made by the appellants and alleged, inter alia, that after the death of his son Sri Manoj Verma, the wife and mother of the appellants Smt. Sanjivani Verma got Rs. 3,30,000/- as compensation in compliance of the orders of Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Haridwar and the respondent never made any objection to the claim of Smt. Sanjivani Verma, rather he helped her in getting the said compensation amount. He further alleged that his deceased son had got opened accounts in the name of his wife and his daughters i.e. the appellants and after the death of his son, Smt. Sanjivani Verma withdrew Rs. 1,25,000/- from her own account, Rs. 17,000/- from the account of his deceased son and Rs. 20,000/- which was deposited in the name of the appellants with Sahara India. It has also been averred by the respondent that he was ready to keep and maintain her granddaughters after the remarriage of Smt. Sanjivani Verma and he tried to make her understand the same and was also ready to given any undertaking in this regard, but she forcefully taken the appellants with herself. It has further been averred that she is engaged in the business of stitching and is able to 2 maintain her daughters/appellants. It has also been alleged that she is a clever woman, who has filed this application for maintenance in the name of her daughters out of her own greed and in order to grab the property of the respondent. 4. In response to the written statement of the respondent, replica was filed on behalf of the appellants wherein the averments made in the written statement were denied. However, it has been admitted that Smt. Sanjivani Verma received Rs. 3,30,000/- as compensation and withdrew the money deposited in the banks, etc. after the death of her ex-husband Sri Manoj Verma. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Family Judge, Haridwar framed following issues: (i) Whether the applicants are entitled to get the maintenance from their grandfather? If yes, the effects thereof? (ii) If yes, what compensation the applicants are entitled to get? 6. Two witnesses, viz. PW1 Smt. Sanjivani Verma and PW2 Sri Pankaj Sharma were examined on behalf of the appellants. On behalf of the opposite party, respondent Sri Brij Pal Verm got examined himself as DW1 and Madan Lal Verma as DW2. Documentary evidence were also adduced by the parties in support of their averments. 7. PW1 Smt. Sanjivai Verma has reiterated the averments made in the claim petition. In her cross- examination, she admitted to have received Rs. 3,30,000/- as compensation after the death of her ex-husband Sri Manoj Verma and also withdrew money deposited in the banks, etc. She has also admitted that the property said 3 to be jointly owned by the family of respondent was actually purchased by the respondent about 25 years ago. PW2 Pankaj Sharma has corroborated the averments made in the claim petition. 8. DW1 Brij Pal Verma has reiterated the averments made in the written statement. He was cross-examined at length but nothing has come out which may create any doubt about his deposition. His statement is further corroborated by the deposition of DW2 Madan Lal Verma. 9. The learned Family Judge, Haridwar after appreciating the evidence and after hearing learned Counsel for the parties, decided both the issues in negative against the appellants and in favour of the respondent and accordingly, dismissed the suit of the appellants vide his judgment and order dated 31.3.2009. 10. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and order of the Family Judge, Haridwar, appellants have preferred this appeal. 11. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 12. Learned Counsel for the appellants argued that the appellants being the minor daughters of deceased Manoj Verma are entitled to get the maintenance from their grandfather/respondent, who is having good source of income as well as ancestral properties and, therefore, learned Family Judge has erred in dismissing the claim of the appellants for the maintenance. 13. We are unable to accept the submissions put forth by learned Counsel for the appellants inasmuch as 4 undisputedly Smt. Sanjivani Verma received Rs. 3,30,000/- as compensation after death of her husband Sri Manoj Verma in road accident. She also withdrew Rs. 1,25,000/- from her own account being maintained by her husband, Rs. 20,000/- deposited in the name of the appellants with the Sahara India and Rs. 17,000/- from the account of Sri Manoj Verma after his death. After the death of her husband, she had also worked at his jwellary shop for nearly six months and kept the profits made in the business with herself. Thereafter she got herself remarried with Sri Sanjay Verma in the year 2005. Respondent was willing to take care of his granddaughters/appellants, but she kept them in her own custody and now the appellants are residing with her and their stepfather. Moreover, in her cross-examination, PW1 Smt. Sanjivani Verma has admitted that the property said to be owned jointly by the family of the respondent was actually purchased by the respondent himself about 25 years ago. Furthermore, Smt. Sanjivani Verma has also admitted in her cross-examination that now she is engaged in the business of stitching along with her husband Sri Sanjay Verma. 14. Section 22 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 clearly provides that the heirs of a deceased Hindu are bound to maintain the dependants of the deceased out of the estate inherited by them from the deceased. In the instant case, PW1 Smt. Sanjivani Verma has made an unequivocal admission that the property said to be owned jointly by the family of the respondent was actually purchased by the respondent himself about 25 years ago. As such, the said property has not been inherited by the respondent rather it was self-earned property. What is more, Smt. Sanjivani Verma also got the amount of compensation and withdrew the money held 5 with the banks, etc. after the death of her ex-husband Sri Manoj Verma. 15. For the reasons recorded above, we do not find any merit in the appeal. There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and it requires no interference by this Court. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order dated 31.3.2009 passed by the Family Judge, Haridwar in Suit No. 64/2006 is herby upheld. There shall be no order as to costs. (Dharam Veer, J.) (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 07.12.2009 07.12.2009 Prabodh 6