Maintenance U/S. 19 HAMA, 1956- Statement Made In Earlier Litigation Having Been Confronted And Admitted Would Hold The Field: Chhattisgarh HC

In the present appeal, the appellant, who is the father-in-law, challenged the judgment of the Family Court which granted maintenance to the daughter-in-law (respondent) in the amount of Rs.1500/-. The daughter-in-law had filed an application claiming maintenance following the death of her husband, and the Family Court had ruled in her favor.

A Division Bench of Justice Goutam Bhaduri and Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari found, “In her statement, she has stated that she had given the statement in earlier proceeding that she is able to maintain herself from the estate of her husband or father or mother and nowhere it is stated that she is unable to maintain herself. She admitted to have given statement that her mother and father have sufficient property. Therefore, the statement itself made by the respondent cut across the requirement which is mandatory under Section 19 of the Act of 1956. There is no answer to the aforesaid issue as to under what circumstances, the statement was made in a judicial proceeding in earlier round of litigation and the statement having been confronted and admitted by the appellant would hold the field to adjudicate the issue.”

Advocate Samir Singh appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate Vikas Kumar Pandey appeared for the Respondent.

The daughter-in-law argued that she was unable to maintain herself and cited the appellant's affluent means, including 6 acres of land and his occupation as a doctor. The Family Court, after considering the evidence, directed the appellant to pay Rs.1500/- as maintenance.

The appellant, in this appeal, contended that the daughter-in-law had previously filed a custody application for the children, asserting that she had sufficient means to support them. The appellant argued that this prior statement contradicts her current claim for maintenance and renders the Family Court's order unjustified.

The daughter-in-law, on the other hand, argued that the statements made in the previous proceeding should not be considered in the current case, and the Family Court's decision is well-founded.

The Court, after hearing both parties and examining the documents, referred to Section 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, which governs maintenance for widowed daughter-in-law. The Court said, “Condition laid down in the said section speaks that maintenance can be allowed when and to the extent that daughter-in-law is unable to maintain herself out of her own earnings or other property or, where she has no property of her own and is unable to obtain maintenance, from the estate of her husband or her father or mother.”

The Court highlighted the daughter-in-law's earlier statement in the custody proceeding where she claimed to have sufficient income and parental support. The daughter-in-law admitted to making such statements during cross-examination. The Court concluded that the daughter-in-law's own admission in the earlier proceeding contradicts the mandatory requirement of Section 19 of the Act.

In light of these findings, the Court set aside the judgment of the Family Court, stating that the daughter-in-law's contradictory statements render the maintenance order unsustainable. Consequently, the appeal was allowed.

Cause Title: Dhanna Sahu v. Sitabai Sahu, [2023:CGHC:28158-DB]

Click here to read/download Order