Divorced daughter not entitled to maintenance under Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act: Delhi HC

The court made the observation while dismissing an appeal filed by a divorced woman challenging a family court order which had rejected her claim of maintenance from her mother and brother.

The high court said that the woman, being a divorcee, can claim maintenance from her former husband. The woman sought to explain that since the man was not traceable, she was unable to claim maintenance from him, the court noted.

However difficult the situation may be, “under the HAMA as she is not a “dependant” as defined under the Act and thus not entitled to claim maintenance from her mother and brother,” the bench said, adding that it finds no infirmity in the family court order.

The woman had challenged a January 4, 2018 family court order which rejected her plea under Section 22 (dealing with maintenance of dependents) of the HAMA. Her father died in 1999 leaving behind four heirs – his wife, son and two daughters. It was the woman’s case that she was not given any share as a legal heir.

The woman had married a man in 1995 but claimed that her husband later deserted her and went to the United States of America. She was eventually granted an ex-parte divorce in 2001.

She claimed that her mother and brother agreed to pay her Rs 45,000 per month as maintenance on the assurance that she would not press for her share in the property. The woman said she was given maintenance regularly only till November 2014 and it had stopped thereafter. Claiming “extreme shortage of funds”, she demanded her share in ancestral properties, but her family members flatly declined to give her anything.

The woman claimed that the family court had not taken into consideration that she did not receive any money, alimony or maintenance from her former husband. She argued that as her former husband is not traceable, she cannot seek any alimony or maintenance from him.

She also sought that her family be directed to pay her Rs 1 lakh per month as maintenance as she is a dependant of the Hindu Undivided Family under HAMA.

The high court noted that the woman had admitted to her deceased father bequeathing nine acres of land to her in his will. “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 (woman) and the sister, and they had shared the sale proceeds,” the court observed.

The high court thereafter said that the family court had rightly observed that as the woman had 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”.

“The respondent no. 2/ mother has already made arrangements for providing the residence to the appellant (divorced daughter). 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,” the high court said.