Justice Anil kshetarpal has made a crucial observation of including window’s child under Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act.
Punjab and Haryana High court decided to make entitled to a widow minor child to get maintenance and protection from Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (HAMA).
Justice Kshetarpal also observed that the HAMA is a beneficial legislation enacted to take care of a destitute daughter-in-law who, on account of unfortunate circumstances, becomes a widow.
“The 1956 Act is a beneficial legislation enacted in order to take care of the destitute daughter-in-law who, on account of unfortunate circumstances, becomes a widow. The word “widow” would include the minor grand children who are staying with their mother”.
A petition was filed by a widow and her two minor children seeking the transfer of their petition under Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 2018 from Kaithal to Ludhiana. The petitioner and her children were used live with parental home in Ludhiana. After the death of her husband in 2018, in order to defend her ancestral land, which was in Kaithal, and therefore, the petitioners to travel a long distance of about 150 km. She was facing hardship due to it, she therefore filed a petition under section 19, 29 and 27 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, (HAMA), 2018.
The Bench of Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan held:
“The petition filed under Sections 19, 20 and 27 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 2018, pending in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Kaithal will be transferred to the competent Court of jurisdiction at Ludhiana.”
The court deemed fit to allow the transfer of petition, and therefore, was ordered to assign the said petition to the competent Court of jurisdiction.The Court also granted liberty to the respondent to revive this petition, provided clear all the maintenance amount, if any, in terms of the petition filed by petitioners. The Court also directed:
“The respondent will undertake to provide Rs. 1000/- per day, to the petitioners for attending the Court proceedings at Kaithal, on each and every date of hearing… The respondent will bring a demand draft of Rs.25,000/- towards the litigation expenses of the petitioners to pursue her case at Kaithal in case the respondent opt to contest this petition.”
While refusing to interfere with the order of the family court, Justice Anil Kshetarpal said,
During the hearing, Advocate Abhimanyu Singh, appearing for the petitioner father-in-law, argued that Section 19 of the HAMA, 1956 entitles the widow daughter-in-law to file an application for maintenance from her in-laws after the death of her husband. However, there is no provision for directing the father-in-law to pay maintenance to the grandchildren, he said.
After finding that the grandchildren were entitled to maintenance, the court dismissed the revision petition.
BY: AYUSHI BHUSHAN, 1st YEAR, BA.LLB(INTEGRATED), BANASTHALI UNIVERSITY, RAJASTHAN
