JUDGMENT : RAJANI DUBEY, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 28.10.2022 passed by the Family Court, Mahasamund, District-Mahasamund (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 05/2022 whereby the application for grant of maintenance under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 so far as it relates to respondents No. 1 & 2 the wife and the child of late Amit Sahu has been allowed granting the maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent No. 1/wife and Rs.500/- per month to respondent No. 2/child. 2. Before learned trial Court, it is an admitted fact that respondents No. 1 and 2 are wife and child of late Amit Sahu who is son of the appellant. Amit Sahu died on 02.01.2022. During his lifetime, he paid maintenance of Rs.1500/- to his wife/respondent No. 1 herein and Rs. 1000/- to child/respondent No. 2 herein. It is also an admitted fact before the learned trial Court that non-applicant/appellant herein Janakram Sahu got retired from Electricity department as Lineman/ Inspector in the year 2013 and his ancestral land is located in joint account in Village-Jhalkhamhariya/Boriyajhar. 3. Applicants No. 1 & 2/respondents herein filed application under Section 19(1 & 2) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 against non-applicant/appellant herein on this ground that during lifetime of late Amit Sahu, the maintenance amount of Rs. 5,000/- was left to be paid and after his death, no maintenance amount of any kind is being paid to the respondents by the appellant herein. The appellant is getting a pension of approximately Rs. 40,000/- per month after retiring from the post of officer in the Electricity Department. Apart from this, the appellant has agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 509 Rakba 0.16 hectares in village Jhalkhamhariya, land bearing Khasra No. 400 Rakba 0.67 hectares in village Parswani, & land bearing Khasra No. 198 Rakba 0.41 hectares in village Boriyajhar & all lands are irrigated double cropped. Apart from the above land, appellant has a big house in village Tumgaon from which he gets a sum of Rs 10,000/- per month as a rent. After retirement, the appellant did some contract work for building houses and from which he used to earn Rs.10,000/- - 15,000/- per month. The appellant used to earn Rs. 5,00,000/- per crop annually from all agricultural land and approximately Rs. 50,000/- per month from all income sources. After retirement, the appellant did some contract work for building houses and from which he used to earn Rs.10,000/- - 15,000/- per month. The appellant used to earn Rs. 5,00,000/- per crop annually from all agricultural land and approximately Rs. 50,000/- per month from all income sources. She further pleaded that she is physically weak and is not capable to do any kind of work & she has no any source of income to maintain herself and her child. Respondent No. 2-Ku. Tokeshwari Sahu is studying in Class 3rd. Appellant is financially capable. Therefore, the appellant may be directed to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- - 10,000/- i.e. total Rs. 20,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondents. 4. In his reply, non-applicant/appellant herein denying all the allegations stated that after coming under the influence of her parents, respondent No. 1 deserted her husband late Amit Sahu and started residing in Raipur and works in clothes shop located in Golbazar, Raipur. The appellant herein is retired, old and disabled person and it is very hard for him to maintain himself and his dependent families with the small amount of pension. If respondent No. 2 wants to live with him then he is ready to provide her better education. 5. Learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence partly allowed the application of the applicants/ respondents herein and vide impugned order dated 28.10.2022 directed the non-applicant/appellant herein to pay a sum of Rs.1,500/- per month to applicant No. 1/respondent No. 1 and Rs. 500/- per month to applicant No. 2/respondent No. 2. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order is illegal, erroneous and contrary to law of facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that respondent No. 1 is residing separately without sufficient reasons and therefore, she is not entitled to get any maintenance amount. Learned Family Court failed to appreciate that respondent No. 1 categorically stated that she does not want to reside with the appellant at her matrimonial house and therefore, adverse inference ought to have been drawn against her. Learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the present appellant is 70 years old aged person and has been retired in the year 2014 and is living with his old Mother, wife and unmarried daughter. Respondent no. Learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the present appellant is 70 years old aged person and has been retired in the year 2014 and is living with his old Mother, wife and unmarried daughter. Respondent no. 1 is capable enough to earn and maintain herself but the learned Family Court did not appreciate the evidence of both the parties properly and recorded a finding which is not in accordance with law. He further submits that the learned Family Court did not appreciate the provisions of Section 19 of the Act of 1956 as the daughter-in-law must have to establish that she does not have any property of her father or mother and this is the pre-requisite condition for grant of maintenance under Section 19 of the Act of 1956. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law and also respondents did not fulfill statutory obligations under Section 19 of the Act of 1956. Therefore, the impugned order granting maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month to respondents is ill founded and is liable to be set aside. It is clear from the statement of respondent No. 1 wherein she admitted that the appellant is not an exclusive owner but a joint owner of the agricultural land, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 7. Reliance has been placed on this Court’s order dated 23.08.2021 passed in FAM No. 242 of 2019 in the matter of Shri Kumar vs. Smt. Satroopa and Others, order dated 13.07.2020 passed in FA (MAT) No. 8 of 2019 in the matter of Parwati vs. Danpatra Singh and Others and order dated 14.06.2010 passed in FA (M) No. 109 of 2008 in case of Dayali Sukhlal Sahu vs. Anju Bai Santosh Sahu. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents supporting the impugned order submits that the learned Family Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and rightly passed the impugned order which does not call for any interference by this Court. Therefore, this appeal being without any substance is liable to be dismissed. 9. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. Under the statutory scheme of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, a widowed daughter-in-law is entitled to maintenance from her father-in-law under Section 19 thereof. The relevant provision, casting statutory obligation on the father -in-law is extracted herein-below: “S.19. 9. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. Under the statutory scheme of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, a widowed daughter-in-law is entitled to maintenance from her father-in-law under Section 19 thereof. The relevant provision, casting statutory obligation on the father -in-law is extracted herein-below: “S.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. (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 co-parcenary 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.” 11. In the matter of Dayali Sukhlal Sahu vs. Anju Bai Santosh Sahu passed in F.A. (M) No. 109 of 2008 decided on 14.06.2010, this Court held in Para 11 as under: “11. From bare perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that obligation of the father-in-law is not personal but it is dependent on the co-parcenary property in the hands of the father-in-law, which is also subject to the conditions that (i) the daughter-in-law is unable to maintain herself out of her own earnings or other property of her own; (ii) she is unable to obtain maintenance from the estate of her husband or her father or mother; (iii) she is unable to obtain maintenance from her son or daughter or his or her estate. And the liability of the father-in-law is subject to the conditions that (i) the father-in-law has co-parcenary property in his possession out of which she has not obtained any share, (ii) that co-parcenary property has sufficient income and (iii) that the daughter-in-law has not re-married.” 12. And the liability of the father-in-law is subject to the conditions that (i) the father-in-law has co-parcenary property in his possession out of which she has not obtained any share, (ii) that co-parcenary property has sufficient income and (iii) that the daughter-in-law has not re-married.” 12. Again in the matter of Parwati vs. Danpatra Singh and Others passed in FA (MAT) No. 8 of 2019 decided on 13.07.2020, this Court held in Para 10 as under: “10........The statutory scheme of the Act is quite clear that the father-in-law would be obliged under the law to maintain widowed daughter-in- law only when all other sources of income as stated in proviso to sub-section (1) are closed and not available. Therefore, in order to get maintenance from the father-in-law, the widowed daughter-in-law is required to specifically plead and prove by leading cogent, reliable and clinching evidence that all other sources of income maintenance has stated in sub-section (1) are not available to her. In the absence of specific pleadings and evidence regarding any of the sources of earning maintenance stated in sub-section (1) either not pleaded or not proved, the statutory obligation could not be fastened on the father-in-law, Irrespective of whether or not he holds any co-parcenary property, out of which, daughter-in-law has not obtained any share.” 13. In light of above, it is clear that applicant/respondent No. 1 herein pleaded that the appellant has agricultural land and he has been retired from Electricity department and is getting monthly pension. The said fact was not denied by the non-applicant/appellant in his written statement but he objected that he is not an exclusive owner of agricultural land and he is a joint owner of that land and from the amount which he receives from pension and agriculture, he has to maintain his daughter, mother and wife. 14. In evidence, respondent No. 1 filed documents from Ex.P/1 to P/6 which are revenue records showing that appellant-Janakram Sahu is a joint owner of agricultural land. 15. In rebuttal, Janakram Sahu filed some medical documents from Ex. D/1 to D/2. 16. In cross-examination, appellant-Janakram Sahu admitted that he has no knowledge as to in which shop, his daughter-in-law/respondent No. 1 is working in Raipur. In Para 13, he also admitted that his deceased son used to pay maintenance amount to the respondents during his lifetime. 17. 15. In rebuttal, Janakram Sahu filed some medical documents from Ex. D/1 to D/2. 16. In cross-examination, appellant-Janakram Sahu admitted that he has no knowledge as to in which shop, his daughter-in-law/respondent No. 1 is working in Raipur. In Para 13, he also admitted that his deceased son used to pay maintenance amount to the respondents during his lifetime. 17. Learned trial Court also minutely appreciated all the facts and circumstances of the case and passed the impugned order directing the appellant to pay maintenance amount to the respondents and looking to the maintenance amount, it is clear that the learned trial Court did not award very high amount of maintenance. Therefore, in light of provisions of Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is just and proper and we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned passed by the Family Court. 18. Accordingly, the appeal being without any substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.