ORDER : D.N. PATEL, J. 1. This First Appeal has been preferred by the appellant, who was the original respondent before the learned trial court in Civil Misc. Case No.11 of 2014. This Civil Misc. Case No.11 of 2014 was instituted by the respondent – Indra Devi before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad, for getting maintenance under Section 22 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for the sake of brevity hereinafter to be referred to as “the Act, 1956). 2. Factual Matrix : * The original applicant before the trial court in Civil Misc. Case No.11 of 2014 is (Smt.) Indra Devi. Her son namely, Sitaram Yadav, was working with Bharat Coking Coal Limited, which is a public sector undertaking, who expired on 13.04.2010. * It appears from the facts of the case that this appellant who is wife of the deceased, Sitaram Yadav, got the compassionate appointment with Bharat Coking Coal Limited on 02.12.2011. * At the time of getting job, this appellant had given an undertaking to the employer that she will maintain her mother-in-law namely, Indra Devi. * It further appears from the facts of this case that as the wife of Sitaram Yadav viz.-Janki Kumari @ Janki Devi, was not maintaining the mother of her husband namely, Indra Devi, an application for maintenance under Section 22 of the Act, 1956, was instituted by Indira Devi, against Janki Kumari @ Janki Devi before the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad, being Civil Misc. Case No.11 of 2014. * This application was allowed by the learned trial court vide judgment and order dated 17.11.2017, whereby, the learned trial court has awarded Rs.7,500/-per month as maintenance, and hence, the original respondent, in Civil Misc. Case No.11 of 2014, has preferred the present First Appeal. Reasons : 3. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that Indra Devi had lost her son – Sitaram Yadav on 02.12.2011, and therefore, the respondent as the wife of Sitaram Yadav got the compassionate appointment with the Bharat Coking Coal Limited, a public sector undertaking. 4. It further appears from the facts of the case that as she got the job on compassionate basis, an undertaking was also filed by this appellant that she will maintain her mother-in-law – Indra Devi. 5. 4. It further appears from the facts of the case that as she got the job on compassionate basis, an undertaking was also filed by this appellant that she will maintain her mother-in-law – Indra Devi. 5. Moreover, as she was not maintaining her mother-in-law, Indra Devi preferred maintenance application under Section 22 of the Act, 1956. For ready reference Section 22 of the Act, 1956, reads as under :- “22. Maintenance of dependents – (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), the heirs of a deceased Hindu are bound to maintain the dependents of the deceased out of the estate inherited by them from the deceased. (2) Where a dependent has not obtained, by testamentary or interest succession, any share in the estate of a Hindu dying after the commencement of this Act, the dependent shall be entitled, subject to the provisions of this Act, to maintenance from those who take the estate. (3) The liability of each of the persons who takes the estate shall be in proportion to the value of the share or part of the estate taken by him or her. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (2) or sub-section (3), no person who is himself or herself a dependent shall be liable to contribute to the maintenance of others, if he or she has obtained a share or part the value of which is, or would, if the liability to contribute were enforced, become less than what would be awarded to him or her by way of maintenance under this Act.” (Emphasis supplied) 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as per sub-Section (2) of Section 22 of the Act, 1956, Indira Devi is not entitled for maintenance, because she has inherited 6 bighas of land of her husband. This contention is not accepted by this Court mainly for the following reasons:- (a) The factual averments which are necessary, have not been raised at all, in the written statement, filed by this appellant in Civil Misc. Case No.11 of 2014 before the Family Court, Dhanbad. (b) Even, in this first appeal, counsel for the appellant is unable to point out to this Court that 6 bighas of land is now mutated in the name of Indira Devi. Case No.11 of 2014 before the Family Court, Dhanbad. (b) Even, in this first appeal, counsel for the appellant is unable to point out to this Court that 6 bighas of land is now mutated in the name of Indira Devi. (c) No head and tail could be matched by the counsel for the appellant that how and which 6 bighas of land is owned by Janki Devi, which was otherwise the property of the husband of this appellant. Just for the sake of the argument, this allegation has been levelled against Indra Devi. (d) This plea has been raised for the first time at the appellate stage, without there being any factual foundation. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has also submitted that under Section 23 of the Act, 1956, it was mandatory for the Court to frame certain issues, which have not been framed. This contention is also not accepted by this Court mainly for the reason that Section 23 of the Act, 1956, has given guidance to a Judge who is determining the maintenance amount. There cannot be any hard and fast rule or mathematical formula regarding how to write a judgment by the trial court. 8. Looking to the judgment delivered by the learned trial court in Civil Misc. Case No.11 of 2014, all the parameters mentioned in Section 23 of the Act 1956, have been considered and appreciated on the basis of evidence on record, especially, in para -8 of the depositions, given by Janki Devi, it appears that this appellant is staying separately from her mother-in-law. All these points have been taken care of by the learned Family Court because in evidence these factors have been narrated by the witnesses. Once the evidences on record are appreciated, these factors have also been appreciated. Looking to the overall evidences on record, no error has been committed by the learned trial court in appreciating all the grounds which are mentioned under Section 23 of the Act, 1956, and the amount which has been fixed as maintenance at Rs.7,500/-cannot be said to be an exaggerated amount or unreasonably excessive amount. On the contrary, the maintenance amount fixed by the learned trial court at Rs.7,500/-, is absolutely fair, just and proper. On the contrary, the maintenance amount fixed by the learned trial court at Rs.7,500/-, is absolutely fair, just and proper. This appellant is fetching salary of Rs.21,000/-per month approximately from Bharat Coking Coal Limited -a Public Sector undertaking, as submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant. 9. We have perused the evidence of the witnesses, examined by the trial court, and looking to the evidence, no error has been committed by the learned trial court in arriving at the conclusion that the original applicant namely, Indra Devi, is entitled for the maintenance from Janki Kumari @ Janki Devi, and the quantum of the maintenance is also fair, just and proper. 10. Hence, we see no reason to entertain this First Appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed.