Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2022) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 17573 = 2023(2) L.A.R. 597
Decided on: 21.12.2022
Present:
Mr. Charanpreet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (78 of 1956), Section 19, 21, 22, 23 -- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 -- Maintenance to widowed daughter-in-law and grandchild – Liability of mother-in-law -- Rejection of plaint -- Contention that petition u/s 19 of the 1956 Act can only be maintained against the father-in-law and not against the mother-in-law -- Under common law, if the grand mother has the wherewithal, she has the moral responsibility to maintain her widowed daughter-in-law and grandchild – Application for rejection of plaint dismissed – Revision also dismissed.
(Para 1-4)
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. –
1. The petition filed by the widowed daughter-in-law and grandchild of the petitioner under Section 19, 21, 22 and 23 of the Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1956 Act”) is pending before the trial Court. The application under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) filed by the petitioner for rejecting the petition at the threshold has been dismissed. The correctness of the aforesaid order has been challenged in this revision petition.
2. The learned counsel representing the petitioner contends that a petition under Section 19 of the 1956 Act can only be maintained against the father-in-law and not against the mother-in-law.
3. This Court has considered the submissions. The petitioner prays for rejection of the petition without permitting the parties to contest the case and lead evidence. Such drastic power should only be exercised if the Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has fulfilled the parameters laid down in Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint. Even otherwise, under common law, if the grant mother has the wherewithal, she has the moral responsibility to maintain her widowed daughter-in-law and grandchild.
4. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order, at this stage. Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
********