JUDGMENT : MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, J. By this appeal, a challenge is made to the order dated 11.7.2017 passed on an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the appellant. 2. The application was filed to challenge the proceedings of Section 19 of Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act, 1956 (in short the ‘Act of 1956’) It is filed against the mother-in-law and brother-in-law. The application under Section 19 of the Act of 1956 is maintainable only against father-in-law. 3. In view of the above, application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC should have been allowed. 4. Learned counsel for the non-appellants submits that application under Sec. 19 of the Act of 1956 was filed not only by the wife but on behalf of grand children also thus the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has rightly been dismissed. The order passed by the learned Family Court may be maintained. 5. We have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of this case. 6. For ready reference Section 19 of the Act of 1956 is quoted hereunder: “19. Maintenance of widowed daughter-in-law.— (1) A Hindu wife, whether married before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be entitled to be maintained after the death of her husband by her father-in-law: Provided and to the extent that she is unable to maintain herself out of her own earnings or other property or, where she has no property of her own, is unable to obtain maintenance- (a) from the estate of her husband or her father or mother, or (b) from her son or daughter, if any, or his or her estate. (2) Any obligation under sub-section (1) shall not be enforceable if the father-in-law has not the means to do so from any coparcenary property in his possession out of which the daughter-in-law has not obtained any share, and any such obligation shall cease on the remarriage of the daughter-in-law.” The perusal quoted above reveals that it to be maintainable against father-in-law and not against any one else. 7. In view of the provision quoted above, we find merit in the appeal and application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The issue raised by the appellant needs no evidence. 7. In view of the provision quoted above, we find merit in the appeal and application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The issue raised by the appellant needs no evidence. In fact, the non-appellants may take other remedies thus while setting aside the order passed by the learned Family Court and allowing the appeal, the non-appellants are given liberty, as is available to them under the provisions of law.