Jahanvi Agarwal
The Delhi High Court has decided that a divorced daughter cannot request maintenance under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act.
The bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna was dealing with the appeal challenging the judgment passed by the Family Court, whereby the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 of the respondents has been allowed and the petition under Section 22 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 of the appellants for claiming maintenance has been rejected.
The Appellant in this case is the sister of respondent No. 1 and the daughter of respondent No. 2 and father. She filed the petition under Section 22 of the HAMA and requested support from the respondents.
The grandmother of the appellant moved to Delhi from Pakistan and used the Re-settlement Scheme to purchase privileged homes and estates. She also received job support from both the Indian and British governments. When she passed away, her assets passed to the appellant’s father, Shri Vijay Kumar Chaudhri, respondent No. 1.
In 1999, the father of the appellant passed away. He was survived by his wife, respondent No. 2, son, Mr. Ranjit Chaudhri, respondent No. 1, daughters, Smt. Kamini Wahi, and the appellant, Malini Chaudhri. According to the appellant, she was not allocated any shares as a legitimate successor.
Additionally, it was asserted that the appellant’s father had written a will stipulating that the appellant and her sister would each receive nine acres of property. The appellant was never able to locate the land and never received a share since the specifics and Khasra No. of these nine acres of land were not provided. The Calcutta High Court received the Probate Petition regarding the will of the father.
The appellant also claimed that during a joint family meeting, the respondents agreed to give the appellant Rs. 45,000 per month for maintenance in exchange for a guarantee that she would not pursue a claim to her father’s estate.
So, the respondents had been routinely paying the appellant’s maintenance. Following that, however, they stumbled and stopped making maintenance payments. She wanted her portion of the family estates since she was in such dire need of money, but the responders resolutely refused to give it to her.
In 1995, the appellant wed a man named John Fletcher at Guru Bumli Bala. However, he left her and emigrated to the United States, an ex parte divorce was ultimately granted.
According to Section 22 of the HAMA, the appellant is a dependent of the HUF, hence she has asked that the respondents be ordered to pay her Rs. 1,000,000 per month in maintenance.
The petition of the appellant was to be rejected as being barred by law, thus the respondents filed an application according to Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. According to the argument, the appellant is not a “dependant” as defined by Section 21 of the Act because she is married to Mr. John Fletcher, which means that she is not entitled to maintenance from her mother and brother. The petition was dismissed while the application was approved.
The bench observed that the claim for maintenance was brought in accordance with Section 21 of the HAMA, which details the dependents who may make a maintenance claim. The “divorced daughter” is not one of the nine kinds of relatives that are provided. A “divorced daughter” is not included in the group of dependents eligible for maintenance, although an unmarried or widowed daughter is acknowledged to have a claim in the estate of the deceased.
The bench held that, as the family court had correctly noted, the appellant had already received her portion from her father’s estate and that, having done so, she was ineligible to re-file a claim for maintenance against the defendants.
According to the High Court, the appellant is not eligible to seek support under HAMA. The bench dismissed the appeal in light of the aforementioned.
Case Name: Malini Chaudhari v. Ranjit Chaudhari & Anr.
Diary Number: 89/2018
Bench: Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna