JUDGMENT Talapatra, J. - Heard Mr. R.G. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. D.C. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The appellant, namely Moutushi Chakraborty is the daughter of Narayan Chakraborty, apparently from the 'second marriage' in subsistence of the marriage of Narayan Chakraborty with Manju Deb, the respondent herein. In the proceeding being Misc.58 of 2013, for issuance of the succession certificate, it has been held that the appellant's mother, namely Smt. Karuna Chakraborty cannot claim any maintenance as she is not legally married wife of Narayan Chakraborty. But, there cannot be any dispute that the appellant has a right over the property/estate of the deceased for all purposes. Such right has been acknowledged by the court of the Civil Judge, Sr. Division, in Misc [Suc] No.114 of 1999, where it has been declared that the appellant is one of the legal heirs and there cannot be any dispute in this regard. The appellant and her mother, Karuna Chakraborty filed a petition under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 seeking maintenance in favour of the appellant at the rate of Rs. 1,500/- per month from the first wife of the deceased who is now receiving family pension for death of Narayan Chakraborty. Evidence was recorded. On appreciation of the evidence, the Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura has observed as follows: "It is the admitted position that the petitioner No.1 has received 1/4th share of the Death cum Retirement Benefits accruing to Lt. Narayan Chakraborty. Thus the opposite party is not bound under Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, to provide for the petitioner No.1. Moreover, as per Sec. 23 of the Act, it is the discretion of the court to grant maintenance under the provisions of this Act. I do not find any just ground to grant maintenance to the petitioner No.1 who has already received her share of inheritance. Whether the said share is sufficient or not is not a question that is to be determined in this case." 3. Mr. R.G. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has seriously criticized the said order showing that when someone filed the pleadings claiming maintenance it has to be determined by the court that whether she has sufficient source of income to maintain herself or not. It is not a mechanical process. Moreover, Mr. Mr. R.G. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has seriously criticized the said order showing that when someone filed the pleadings claiming maintenance it has to be determined by the court that whether she has sufficient source of income to maintain herself or not. It is not a mechanical process. Moreover, Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel has submitted that the interpretation of Section 21 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 is totally unacceptable. Section 21 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 defines the 'dependants' for the purpose of Chapter-III of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. It is not a mechanical process. Moreover, Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel has submitted that the interpretation of Section 21 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 is totally unacceptable. Section 21 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 defines the 'dependants' for the purpose of Chapter-III of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. The dependants are the relatives of the deceased who are: (i) his or her father; (ii) his or her mother; (iii) his widow, so long as she does not re-marry; (iv) his or her son or the son of his predeceased son or the son of a predeceased son of his predeceased son, so long as he is a minor; provided and to the extent that he is unable to obtain maintenance, in the case of a grandson from his father's or mother's estate, and in the case of a great grand-son, from the estate of his father or mother or father's father or father's mother; (v) his or her unmarried daughter, or the unmarried daughter of his predeceased son or the unmarried daughter of a predeceased son of his predeceased son, so long as she remains unmarried: provided and to the extent that she is unable to obtain maintenance, in the case of a grand-daughter from her father's or mother's estate and in the case of a great-grand-daughter from the estate of her father or mother or father's father or father's mother; (vi) his widowed daughter: provided and to the extent that she is unable to obtain maintenance- (a) from the estate of her husband, or (b) from her son or daughter if any, or his or her estate, or (c) from her father-in-law or his father or the estate of either of them; (vii) any widow of his son or of a son of his predeceased son, so long as she does not remarry: provided and to the extent that she is unable to obtain maintenance from her husband's estate, or from her son or daughter, if any, or his or her estate; or in the case of a grandson's widow, also from her father-in-law's estate; (viii) his or her minor illegitimate son, so long as he remains a minor; (ix) his or her illegitimate daughter, so long as she remains unmarried. 4. 4. The appellant's status is fully covered by Section 21 of the said Act as she is entitled to get the maintenance as the dependant of the deceased. It is to be mentioned here that Section 22(2) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 provides that the dependant of the deceased would be entitled to maintenance from the heir of the deceased, provide such dependent has not acquired, whether by testamentary or by in testate succession, any share in the estate of the deceased. If the widow of a deceased has also succeeded as one of his heirs, whether through testament or on intestacy, the question of her right to be maintained by some other heir of the deceased out of the estate of the deceased would not arise. Said observation has been made having regard to Section 22(2) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, which provides thus: 22(2) Where a dependant has not obtained, by testamentary or intestate-succession, any share in the estate of a Hindu dying after the commencement of this Act, the dependant shall be entitled, subject to the provisions of this Act, to maintenance from those who take the estate. 5. On the basis of this provision, the Judge, Family Court has denied the maintenance to the appellant. According to him, since the appellant has got 1/4th share of the death cum retirement benefits, she is not entitled to get the maintenance from the heirs of the deceased, out of the estate inherited by them. 6. Section 23 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 makes the provision for determining the amount of maintenance. Under sub-section 2 of Section 23 of the said Act, the various parameters which are to be considered have been laid down for purpose of quantifying the maintenance. 7. Mr. D.C. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that there is no infirmity in the observation made by the Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura inasmuch as the appellant has received 1/4th share of the death-cum-retirement benefits. Thus, under sub section 2 of Section 22 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, the appellant will not get any maintenance. In the alternative, Mr. Saha, learned counsel has submitted that the appellant's step brother has secured a job under Die-in-harness Scheme, the appellant may ask for maintenance from him. Mr. Thus, under sub section 2 of Section 22 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, the appellant will not get any maintenance. In the alternative, Mr. Saha, learned counsel has submitted that the appellant's step brother has secured a job under Die-in-harness Scheme, the appellant may ask for maintenance from him. Mr. Saha, learned counsel has rightly stated that the person who gets the job under the Die-in-harness Scheme, he/she has the duty to maintain all the dependants of the deceased. But this court would add, to what Mr. Saha, learned counsel has submitted, that it is the moral duty. The employer has the right to supervise whether that duty has been properly discharged or not, and if there is any denial, they can take appropriate action against the persons who had secured the job under Die-in-harness Scheme. 8. Having appreciated the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the parties, we are of the view that the word 'estate' cannot be given a narrow definition for purpose of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. The family pension is no doubt an 'estate', which has been acquired through the deceased as pension is an estate secured on putting the definite period of service. Thus, the dependants have the right to claim maintenance from the heirs of the deceased. Thus, the observation of the Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura that he has the discretion to deny the maintenance under Section 23 Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 cannot be sustained inasmuch as the said discretion is confined to determining the quantum of the maintenance, not to whether the maintenance should be granted or not. As we have been shown that the respondent is getting a meager amount pension to the extent of Rs.5,000/- per month, according to us, it would be just and proper to direct the sole respondent to pay a sum Rs.1,500/- per month to the appellant w.e.f. 01.05.2021 and the said amount shall be paid within 10th day of every English Calendar month. If the appellant furnished the details of the bank account, the said amount shall be transferred to the said account, otherwise the said amount shall be sent to the appellant by money order by the said stipulated date. It is made absolutely clear that the appellant will continue to get such maintenance until her marriage. In terms thereof, this appeal stands allowed. It is made absolutely clear that the appellant will continue to get such maintenance until her marriage. In terms thereof, this appeal stands allowed. Draw the decree accordingly. Send down the LCRs forthwith. In the result, the appeal stands allowed.