Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 24 (PAT)

Gangajala Devi v. State of Bihar

2005-01-10

body2005
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioners Gangajala Devi and Sitaram Choubey are father and mother of the deceased Yogendra Choubey Said Yogendra Choubey was working as a constable and died in harness in the year 1988. At the time of his death, he was issueless. Respondent No.6 was the married wife of said Yogendra Choubey. 3. It appears that after much pursuance from the side of the petitioners and respondent no.6, respondent no.6 was allowed employment. It also appears from the record that for some time, respondent no.6 maintained the petitioners. Thereafter, a dispute arose between the parties and respondent no.6 refused to maintain them and has contracted second marriage and is absolutely ignoring them while according to respondent no.6 the petitioners wanted her to continue as widow and did not go for second marriage and live with the petitioners. According to her and as it appears from the documents and Annexures and counter affidavit filed by the State, complaints and counter complaints were made. The petitioners were making allegation against respondent no.6 while respondent no.6 was making allegations against the petitioners. 4. The respondent no.6 started asserting that she is ready and willing to keep the petitioners with her but the petitioners are showing their absolute inability and are not ready and willing to go and stay with respondent no.6. Learned counsel for the petitioners on the other hand submit that after losing their young son, the petitioners were absolutely relying upon their widow daughter-in-law and it would be impossible for the parents of the husband to live with the second husband of their daughter-in-law. He submitted that they are entitled to maintenance from the daughter-in-law who could get employment after death of their own son. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent no.6 submits that as respondent no.6 is ready and willing to maintain the petitioners and at some point of time had sent a sum of Rs. 500/- which the petitioners refused to receive, therefore, they are not entitled to any maintenance. 6. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent no.6 submits that as respondent no.6 is ready and willing to maintain the petitioners and at some point of time had sent a sum of Rs. 500/- which the petitioners refused to receive, therefore, they are not entitled to any maintenance. 6. I could have directed an inquiry in the matter as to what is the income and what are the needs of the petitioners because in my considered opinion, the daughter-in-law who has succeeded to the deceased son and could secure employment under the law is obliged to maintain the parents of the deceased husband but taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, age of the petitioners and that they have become fragile in life and are in need of money, I dispose of this writ application with a direction that the petitioners shall be entitled to receive 20% of the total emoluments received by respondent no.6 from the department. The petitioners would be entitled to submit a copy of this order before the departmental head of respondent no.6 who shall see that 20% of the salary/total emolument are deducted and directly paid to the petitioners. The petition is disposed of.