Smt. Raina vs Hari Mohan Budhaulia

S.N. Srivastava, J.—This writ petition is directed against the order dated 28.2.2003 passed by Ist Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Banda rejecting application for impleadment of Km. Muniya and Km. Chuniya, daughters of late Alok Kumar Budhauliya, as Petitioners in a petition u/s 19 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, filed by their mother Smt. Raina Budhaulia after death of their father Alok Kumar Budhaulia. The said order was also affirmed in revision by order dated 6th December, 2003.

Learned Counsel for Petitioner urged that Km. Muniya and Chuniya are minor daughters of late Alok Kumar Budhaulia. They are also entitled to get maintenance along with their mother. Their application for impleadment was wrongly rejected by the courts below. Impugned orders are liable to be quashed and they may be permitted to be impleaded as Petitioners.

In reply to the same learned Counsel for opposite party urged that under the provisions of Section 20 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, minor daughters are entitled to claim maintenance from their mother, hence order was rightly passed refusing to impaled minor daughters as Petitioners in a petition for maintenance. He further urged that orders were rightly passed in accordance with law, same do not require any interference.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders.

From record it transpires that Smt. Raina Budhaulia, widow of Alok Kumar Budhaulia, filed a petition for maintenance from her father-in-law (opposite party) under Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act on the ground that she has no means to maintain herself and her two minor daughters and her father-in-law (opposite party) has sufficient means to maintain her alongwith her two daughters and husband of Petitioner committed suicide on 29.9.2001 due to serious mental torture and misbehavior of his father-in-law (opposite party), mother and brother. Petitioner and her two minor daughters are dependent on her father-in-law.

Sections 21 and 20 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act make it clear that a Hindu is bound, during his or her life time, to maintain his or her legitimate or illegitimate children, his or her aged or infirm parents and a legitimate or illegitimate child may claim maintenance from his or her father and mother so long as a child is minor.

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case where the widow is without any means to maintain her, she rightly filed an application claiming maintenance of herself and her two minor daughters who are also dependent on her from her father-in-law. She also rightly filed an application for their impleadment as Petitioners. Courts below acted illegally and with material irregularity in exercising jurisdiction in refusing to allow impleadment application taking a highly technical view without considering the intention of Legislature while enacting Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. The intention of the Legislature is that a Hindu shall maintain his legitimate children, if he has means, but if widow of deceased son who has no means to maintain her files a petition for maintenance against her father-in-law, she may also claim maintenance for her minor daughters who are also dependent on her. The application for impleadment was rightly filed. The impugned orders suffer from error of law apparent on the face of record and are liable to be quashed.

With the result writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned orders dated 28.2.2003 and 6.12.2003 are quashed. Km. Muniya and Km. Chuniya-minor daughters of Alok Kumar Budhaulia, under the guardianship of Smt. Raina, widow of Alok Kumar Budhaulia are entitled to be impleaded as Petitioners in the petition u/s 19 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I direct trial court to decide petition for maintenance in accordance with law considering the observations made in this judgment at a very early date not beyond four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.