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. {Para 16}
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
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 89/2018
MALINI CHAUDHRI Vs RANJIT CHAUDHRI & ANR.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
Author: NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J
Pronounced on: 13th September, 2023.
Print Page