JUDGMENT 1. - This miscellaneous appeal is directed against the judgment dated 9.5.95, passed by the Judge, Family Court, Udaipur, by which the learned Judge of the Family Court allowed the application under Sections 19 and 22 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 filed by Smt. Phool Kanwar and Miss Prem Kanwar and directed the non-applicant Sher Singh to pay the maintenance of Rs. 450/- per month to Smt. Phool Kanwar and Rs. 300/- per month to Miss Prem Kanwar. 2. Smt. Phool Kanwar (widow of Bhanwar Singh S/o Sher Singh) and Miss Prem Kanwar D/o Shri (late) Bhanwar Singh, moved an application in the Court of the learned Judge of the Family Court, Udaipur, for the grant of maintenance on the allegation that Smt. Phool Kanwar was married to Bhanwar Singh S/o Sher Singh and out of this wed lock, daughter Prem Kanwar was born who is aged about nine years. Bhanwar Singh breathed his last before seven years and both the applicants are, therefore, dependent upon Sher Singh - the father of deceased Bhanwar Singh, who have got ancestral land and other property. Out of this ancestral land and property the applicants are entitled for ⅓ share. Though the formal partition of the ancestral property was made by Sher Singh but neither the actual possession of the agricultural land nor any other property has been handed over to applicants and Sher Singh and his younger son Jaswant Singh are cultivating their land and are not giving any share to them out of the produce of this land. They have forcibly taken possession over the land which came to the share of the applicants and the respondent, with the aid of his younger son Jaswant Singh, is not permitting them to cultivate the land of their share and the income from the agricultural land as well as from the other property which is about Rs. 60,000/- per year. It was, therefore, prayed that both the applicants may be awarded a sum of Rs. 500/- per month as maintenance from respondent Sher Singh. This' application was opposed by the respondent. 60,000/- per year. It was, therefore, prayed that both the applicants may be awarded a sum of Rs. 500/- per month as maintenance from respondent Sher Singh. This' application was opposed by the respondent. It is stated in the reply that the partition of the ancestral land and the property has already taken and the possession over the land of the share of the applicants has already been handed over to them and they are residing in the house which came to their share and are cultivating their land and, therefore, they are not entitled for any maintenance. 3. The applicants, in support of their case, examined seven witnesses and the non-applicant, in support of his case, examined four witnesses. The learned trial Court, after trail, came to the conclusion that though the formal partition has been effected but the possession over the property, which came to the share of the applicants, has not been handed-over to them and the property, including the agricultural land, is in possession of the respondent and the applicant Smt. Phool Kanwar is living with her father alongwith her daughter and the applicants have no source of income. The learned trial Court, therefore, allowed the application filed by the applicants and directed the respondent to pay Rs. 450/- per month as maintenance to Smt. Phool Kanwar and Rs. 300/- per month as maintenance to her daughter Miss Prem Kanwar. It is against this order that appellant-respondent has filed this miscellaneous appeal. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the ancestral property and the agricultural land were partitioned and the possession of their share was handed over to the applicants and the finding of the learned trial Court that the possession of the land in question has not been handed-over to the applicants, is, therefore, contrary to the facts on record. It has further been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that since ⅓ share in the property has already been handed-over to the applicants, therefore, they are not entitled for any maintenance from him. 5. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant-respondent. 6. It has further been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that since ⅓ share in the property has already been handed-over to the applicants, therefore, they are not entitled for any maintenance from him. 5. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant-respondent. 6. The learned trial Court, after appreciation of the evidence, came to the conclusion that the actual partition has not been effected and the possession over the land has not been handed-over to the applicants and the land of their share is in possession of the non-applicant Sher Singh. The finding arrived at by the learned trial Court cannot be said to be, in any way, arbitrary, unjust or improper. They are based on proper appreciation of the evidence. The witnesses produced by the non-applicant themselves have admitted that the agricultural land, which came to the share of the applicants, is being cultivated by Sher Singh and his son Jaswant Singh. They have even admitted that the share of the crop of the applicants has not been given to them. They have, also, admitted that the applicant Smt. Phool Kanwar is living with her mother alongwith her daughter and sometime she comes to the village. From the evidence, produced by the parties, it has been established that the share of the applicants in the ancestral property has not been given to the applicants and they have no source of income. It is the duty of a father-in-law to maintain his widow daughter-in-law and the grand daughter. The applicants have no source of income and, therefore, the learned trial Court was justified in granting maintenance of Rs. 450/- per month to Smt. Phool Kanwar and Rs. 300/- per month to Miss Prem Kanwar. The judgment/order passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court, Udaipur, therefore, does not require any interference. 7. In the result, we do not find any merit in this miscellaneous appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******