* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on:24th August, 2023

Pronounced on: 13th September, 2023

+ MAT.APP.(F.C.) 89/2018
MALINI CHAUDHRI ..... Appellant
Through: Appellant in person.

versus

RANJIT CHAUDHRI & ANR. ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Kapil Arora, Ms. Manjula
Baxla & Mr. Prashashti Bhatt,
Advocates with respondent in
person.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

J U D G M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J

CM APPL. 17818/2018(Condonation of delay)

1. Vide the present application, the applicant/appellant seeks

condonation of 60 days‟ delay in filing the present appeal.
2. For the grounds and reasons stated in the present application, the
application is allowed, the delay of 60 days in filing the present appeal is
condoned.
3. Accordingly, the present application is disposed of.
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 89/20218
4. The present Appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act,
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 89/20218 Page 1 of 6
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:SAHIL
SHARMA
Signing Date:14.09.2023
13:18:59
 1984 read with Sections 96 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') 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
(hereinafter referred to as 'HAMA') of the appellant for claiming
maintenance has been rejected.
5. The appellant is the daughter of respondent No. 2/Smt. Indira
Chaudhri and Late Shri Vijay Kumar Chaudhari/father and the sister of
respondent No. 1/Ranjit Chaudhri. She is a divorcee and filed the Petition
under Section 22 of HAMA claiming maintenance from the respondents.
6. The grandmother of the appellant came from Pakistan to Delhi and
acquired privileged properties and estates under the Re-settlement Scheme
and also secured employment with the assistance of the Indian as well as
the British Government. After the demise of grandmother, her properties
and estates devolved upon Shri Vijay Kumar Chaudhri, father of the
appellant and respondent No.1.
7. The father of the Appellant died in the year 1999, leaving behind
four legal heirs, namely, his wife/respondent No. 2, son, Mr. Ranjit
Chaudhri/respondent No. 1, daughters, Smt. Kamini Wahi and the
appellant/Malini Chaudhri. The appellant has claimed that she was not
given any share as a legal heir.
8. It was also claimed that the father of the appellant had left the Will

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 89/20218 Page 2 of 6

Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:SAHIL
SHARMA
Signing Date:14.09.2023
13:18:59
 dated 25.09.1999, whereby 9 acres of land situated near Rozka Village,
Haryana to the appellant and her sister, Smt. Kamini Wahi. Because of
the details and the Khasra No. of these 9 acres of land were not specified,
the appellant was never able to trace the land and never got any share in
the land. The Probate Petition No. 191/2000 was filed before the Calcutta
High Court in respect of Will dated 25.09.1999 of Late Shri Vijay Kumar
Chaudhri and the same was probated on 10.07.2000.
9. The appellant had further asserted that a joint meeting of family
members was held and the respondents agreed to pay Rs. 45,000/- per
month to the appellant towards her maintenance, on an assurance that she
would not press for her share in the property bequeathed by her father.
Accordingly, the respondents had been paying the maintenance to the
appellant regularly till November, 2014. But thereafter, they failed and
neglected to pay any maintenance. Faced with the extreme shortage of
funds, she demanded her share in the ancestral properties, but the
respondents flatly declined to give her anything.
10. The appellant got married to one Mr. John Fletcher in the year 1995
in Guru Bumli Bala. However, the appellant‟s husband, Mr. John Fletcher
deserted the appellant and went to the United States of America (USA)
and eventually, the appellant was granted ex parte divorce on 30.09.2001.
11. The appellant has claimed that the respondents be directed to pay
her an amount of Rs 1,00,000/- per month as maintenance as she is a
dependant of HUF under Section 22 of HAMA.
12. The respondents filed the Application under Order VII Rule 11 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for rejection of the petition of the

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 89/20218 Page 3 of 6

Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:SAHIL
SHARMA
Signing Date:14.09.2023
13:18:59
 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.
13. Being aggrieved by the impugned Order dated 04.01.2018, the
present appeal has been preferred by the appellant.
14. The 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.
15. Submissions heard.
16. It is the admitted case of the parties that the appellant is the
daughter of the respondent No. 2 and sister of the respondent No. 1. She
as per her own averments, had got married to Mr. John Fletcher in the
year 1995 and got divorced from him in the year 30.09.2001. Thus, the
appellant is a divorcee.
17. The claim for maintenance has been made under Section 21 of
HAMA which provides for the dependents who may claim maintenance.
18. It provides for 9 categories of relatives in which the “divorced

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 89/20218 Page 4 of 6

Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:SAHIL
SHARMA
Signing Date:14.09.2023
13:18:59
 daughter” does not feature. An unmarried or widowed daughter is
recognized to have a claim in the estate of the deceased, but a “divorced
daughter” does not feature in the category of dependents entitled to
maintenance.
19. The appellant being a divorcee has a claim for maintenance against
her husband even after her divorce. The appellant being conscious of her
right of maintenance against the husband, has sought to explain that since
her husband is not traceable, she is unable to claim maintenance from
him. However difficult situation as it may be, but under the HAMA as
she is not a “dependent” as defined under the Act and thus not entitled to
claim maintenance from her mother and brother.
20. Pertinently, the appellant has admitted that her father vide Will
dated 25.09.1999 had bequeathed 9 acres of land situated near Rozka
Village, Haryana to her and her sister/Kamini Wahi. Though she claims
that since the exact location and address of the land was not mentioned,
she was not able to trace the land to claim her share, but during the course
of arguments, learned counsel for the respondents had clarified that the
land was sold in the year 2001 jointly by the appellant and the sister, Smt.
Kamini Wahi and they had shared the sale proceeds.
21. 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.
22. It is significant to observe that in a joint meeting, considering the
situation of the appellant, the mother/ respondent No. 2 had agreed to pay

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 89/20218 Page 5 of 6

Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:SAHIL
SHARMA
Signing Date:14.09.2023
13:18:59
 her Rs. 45,000/- per month which has been paid till November, 2014.
23. Significantly, it has also been disclosed that the respondent
No. 2/mother had purchased the Flat No. 4A, Second Floor, D2, Kalini
Kunj, New Delhi-110065 jointly with the appellant from her own funds,
only with an intent to secure the well-being of the appellant. The
respondent No. 2/mother has already made arrangements for providing the
residence to the appellant. It cannot be overlooked 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.
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. Accordingly, the present appeal along with pending applications, if
any, is dismissed.

(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)

JUDGE

(SURESH KUMAR KAIT)

JUDGE

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 89/20218 Page 6 of 6

Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:SAHIL
SHARMA
Signing Date:14.09.2023
13:18:59
 SEPTEMBER 13, 2023
S.Sharma

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 89/20218 Page 7 of 6

Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:SAHIL
SHARMA
Signing Date:14.09.2023
13:18:59