Widowed daughter-in-law’s right to maintenance survives father-in-law’s death, limited to coparcenary estate: Delhi High Court
In an important judgment which helps understand the extent to which the Hindu personal law of maintenance is applicable, the Delhi High Court ruled that a widowed daughter-in-law does not lose her statutory right to maintenance merely on the basis that her father-in-law had died before her husband.The Court decided that a widow would be entitled to claim maintenance on the property of her deceased father-in-law, when the said property is acquired through coparcenary property as envisioned in the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA).The ruling settles a long-standing interpretative question that has existed long in relation to Sections 19, 21 and 22 of the HAMA and has extensive consequences on widowed women who are left without a means of livelihood after the death of their husband.Issue before CourtThe appeal was initiated based on the order passed by a Family Court in Delhi that rejected a maintenance petition submitted by the appellant on the basis of non-maintainability.The appellant’s husband had died in March 2023. Her father-in-law, however, had predeceased him, having passed away in December 2021. Following the demise of her husband, the appellant turned to the Family Court seeking maintenance, pursuant to 19 of the HAMA, which directly concerns the maintenance of a widowed daughter-in-law.The Family Court rejected her petition, claiming that, as the father-in-law was deceased and the appellant had not inherited any part of his estate, her claim was barred under Section 22 of the HAMA, which governs the maintenance of dependents out of an inherited estate.Aggrieved by this interpretation, the appellant approached the High Court.The core legal questionAt the outset, the Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar noted that the case involved a pure question of law, with no serious factual dispute requiring adjudication.The specific question that was considered by the Court was:Whether a daughter-in-law, who becomes a widow after the demise of her father-in-law, is entitled to claim maintenance from the estate derived from the coparcenary property of her deceased father-in-law.The Court also noted that counsel on both sides fairly admitted that there was no direct judicial precedent that directly resolved this question.To answer the question, the Court has conducted an in-depth analysis of the applicable clauses of the HAMA. Section 19(1) to which the Bench originally referred provides a statutory right to a widowed daughter in law to claim maintenance of her father-in-law on the death of her husband under some prescribed conditions. But the Court stressed the limitation provided under Section 19(2), noting that the responsibility of the father-in-law is not unlimited:“The provision limits the liability of the father-in-law only to the extent of his coparcenary property. If the father-in-law does not possess any coparcenary property and maintenance is sought from his self-acquired property or other assets, the widowed daughter-in-law will have no enforceable right.”The Court observed that this difference is essential to the interpretation of what the obligation is all about- it is not a personal obligation but a property obligation.The decisive provision, according to the Bench, was Section 21(vii) of the HAMA, which defines who qualifies as a “dependant” for the purposes of maintenance.The provision expressly includes:“any widow of his son… provided and to the extent that she is unable to obtain maintenance from her husband’s estate… also from her father-in-law’s estate.”The Court placed significant emphasis on the phrase “also from her father-in-law’s estate”, holding that it reflects a clear legislative intent.In explaining this, the Bench noted:“The language used in this clause implies that a widowed daughter-in-law is entitled to claim maintenance from her father-in-law’s estate, contingent upon her status as a dependant who is unable to secure maintenance from her husband’s estate, or from her own or her children’s estate.”Importantly, the Court expressly rejected the argument that this right extinguishes upon the death of the father-in-law.The High Court clarified that the liability theorized in the Section 21(vii) is not limited to lifetime of the father-in-law.“The liability arising out of the said clause is not merely confined to the father-in-law. It survives as an enforceable claim against his estate. “Therefore, such maintenance can be awarded not only against the father-in-law but also from the estate of the father-in-law,” the Court held.This conclusion directly reversed the rationale of the Family Court and was the central part of the decision.The Bench then reviewed the Section 22 of the HAMA which imposes an obligation on heirs of a dead Hindu to keep a dependent on the property inherited by them.The Court clarified that Section 22 does not extinguish the widow’s right merely because she did not inherit a share by succession. Rather, it reinforces the obligation of those who take the estate.The Court warned that any narrow interpretation of Section 22 would be fatal to the scheme of the HAMA when considered together with Sections 19 and 21. In effect, Section 22 regulates enforcement against heirs, while Sections 19 and 21 define the existence of the right itself.The Court also relied on Section 28 of the HAMA which permits enforcement of maintenance rights even after transfer of property, subject to notice or gratuitous transfer.The Bench says that this provision shows a concern among the laws to avoid evasion:“The overall scheme of the Act clearly recognises the widow’s statutory right to claim maintenance from her father-in-law’s estate and ensures that such right remains enforceable even against transferees.”Stepping beyond the technical interpretation, the Court underscored the social objective behind HAMA and described the Act as a social welfare legislation.“The provisions herein shall be construed in such a manner that advances the right of a widowed daughter-in-law. A restrictive interpretation would fall short of the parliamentary intent behind the enactment of the statute.”The Court also observed that in the traditional Hindu law there was a duty of morality on the part of the father-in-law to take care of his widowed daughter in law -a duty which now has been turned into a legal right.Allowing the appeal, the High Court set aside the Family Court’s order dismissing the maintenance petition as non-maintainable.While the Court declined to grant interim maintenance at this stage, it directed the Family Court to make sincere efforts for expeditious disposal of the proceedings on merits.MAT.APP. (F.C.) 303/2024, CM APPL. 52917/2024, CM APPL. 72192/2024, CM APPL. 8781/2025, CM APPL. 22992/2025 & CM APPL. 33206/2025 GEETA SHARMA v. KANCHANA RAI & ORSFor Appellant: Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Varun Singh, Ms. Deepeika Kalia, Ms. Alankriti Dwivedi, Ms. Somesa Gupta, Ms. Vasudha Singh & Mr. Sudeep Chandra, Advs.For Respondent: Mr. Parag P Tripathi, Sr. Adv. Ms. Niyati Kohli, Mr. Pratham Vir Agarwal & Mr. Nilay Gupta, Advs. for R-2 & 3. Mr. Trideep Pais, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Shravanth Shanker, Adv. for Applicant Uma Devi.(Vatsal Chandra is a Delhi-based Advocate practicing before the courts of Delhi NCR.)
