MALINI CHAUDHRI (Appellant) Vs. RANJIT CHAUDHRI & ANR. (Respondents)
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 89/2018
(2JB,NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA and SURESH KUMAR KAIT JJ.,delivered by NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.)
Facts: The present Appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Sections 96 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed on behalf of the appellant against the impugned Order dated 04.01.2018 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, South-East, Saket, New Delhi, whereby the Application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 of the respondents herein has been allowed and the Petition under Section 22 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 of the appellant for claiming maintenance has been rejected. The appellant is is a divorcee and filed the Petition under Section 22 of HAMA claiming maintenance from the respondents.
Issue: Whether the daughter is a “dependant” under Section 21 of the HAMA Act?
Arguments on behalf of counsel for appellant: Appellant in person
Appellant has asserted that the issue whether she is a “dependant” under Section 21 of the HAMA Act is a mixed question of fact and law which cannot be decided summarily. Her expenses include salary to maid servants, drivers, cooks, daily food and medical expenses and other sundry expenses, which add up to Rs. 75,000/- per month. It is claimed that the learned Judge did not take into consideration that she did not receive any money, alimony or maintenance from her husband, Mr. John Fletcher. As her husband is not traceable, the appellant cannot seek any alimony or maintenance from him.
Arguments on behalf of counsel for respondent: Mr. Kapil Arora, Ms. Manjula Baxla
The respondents had filed the Application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for rejection of the petition of the appellant as being barred by law. It was stated that in view of the admitted fact of the appellant being married to Mr. John Fletcher, she is not a “dependant” as provided under Section 21 of the HAMA, and thus, she is not entitled to maintenance from her brother and mother. The application was allowed vide Order dated 04.01.2018 and the petition was rejected.
Held: The court dismissed the present appeal and held that,” We find no infirmity in the impugned Order dated 04.01.2018 rejecting the Petition under Section 22 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act.” The court further observed that, “As has been rightly observed by the learned Judge, Family court, the appellant has already received her share from the estate of her father and having received her share, she cannot again raise any claim of maintenance afresh from the respondents. It is significant to observe that the respondents being the brother and mother had also supported the daughter/appellant by voluntarily giving her Rs.45,000/- per month to her till 2014. The learned Judge, Family Court, has observed that appellant being the divorced daughter of the respondent No. 2 and sister of the respondent No. 1, is not entitled to claim any maintenance in the above discussed circumstances under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act.”
