New Delhi: A Delhi court has granted interim maintenance to a widow engaged in a legal dispute with her father-in-law over her deceased husband’s assets, holding that her immediate financial needs could not be deferred until a separate civil suit over the money was decided.
Family court judge Naresh Kumar Laka held that the woman had a prima facie right to half of the insurance and service benefits, amounting to over Rs 21 lakh, received by her father-in-law after her husband’s death in a motor accident. The court said her share would work out to around Rs 11 lakh. The father-in-law argued that the money could not be treated as an asset of the deceased husband as it had been released to him as the nominee or beneficiary.
The court, however, observed: “When the aforesaid suit is pending on the point of determination of rights of the petitioner to claim the said amount, it cannot be said that the said amount belongs to the respondent exclusively.” He also contended that the widow had submitted an affidavit and a no-objection certificate (NOC) permitting the release of the amount. Further, he submitted that a separate suit regarding rights over the same amount was pending before a district judge.
Because there are several precedents which lay down that the interim maintenance should be fixed to avoid destitution and vagrancy of the helpless person, it further noted, “This court is also not oblivious of the fact that the proceeding/trial of the said suit may take years and on account of pendency of the said suit, the urgent need of maintenance of the petitioner cannot be ignored or deferred. It therefore held that “the said amount can very well be said to be an ‘asset of the husband’ of the petitioner. The court also rejected the NOC argument, taking note of the widow’s claim that she had signed the document on the understanding that her father-in-law would create a fixed deposit receipt (FDR) in her name, which he allegedly failed to do.
Rejecting the contention that the money was not an asset of the deceased husband, the court observed that “both the said amounts were created from the personal venture of the husband of the petitioner and not from any input of the respondent. Noting that the widow was unemployed and had no independent source of income, while her parents were too poor to support her, the court said that although a father-in-law had no direct obligation to maintain his daughter-in-law from his personal funds, “there may be circumstances in which a father-in-law can be directed to maintain a daughter-in-law.