Right of Maintenance of a Hindu Daughter-in-Law from Father-in-Law’s Property after His Death

Maintenance under Hindu law is not merely a statutory right but a social obligation deeply rooted in ancient Hindu jurisprudence. The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter “HAMA”) codifies this moral and legal duty, aiming to protect vulnerable family members from destitution. One of the most contested questions under this Act concerns the right of a widowed daughter-in-law to claim maintenance from her father-in-law’s estate, particularly when she becomes a widow after the death of her father-in-law.

This issue was conclusively settled by the Supreme Court of India in Kanchana Rai v. Geeta Sharma & Ors. (2026), where the Court adopted a literal, purposive, and constitutionally harmonious interpretation of Sections 21 and 22 of HAMA. The judgment has far-reaching consequences for gender justice, family law jurisprudence, and statutory interpretation.

Factual Background of the Case

The dispute arose out of the estate of late Dr. Mahendra Prasad, who died in December 2021. He was survived by three sons. One of his sons, Ranjit Sharma, died in 2023, i.e., after the death of his father. His widow, Geeta Sharma, filed a petition claiming maintenance from her father-in-law’s estate under HAMA.

The Family Court dismissed her petition on the ground that she was not a widow at the time of her father-in-law’s death, and therefore could not be treated as a “dependant.” However, the High Court reversed this finding, holding that she was entitled to claim maintenance as a widow of the son of the deceased.

The High Court decision was challenged before the Supreme Court by:

1. Kanchana Rai, wife of the predeceased son Devinder Rai, who disputed the maintainability of the maintenance claim; and
2. Uma Devi, who claimed to be the long-term live-in partner of Dr. Mahendra Prasad and contended that Geeta Sharma had no legal right to maintenance from the estate.

Issue

• Whether a daughter-in-law who becomes a widow after the death of her father-in-law can claim maintenance from his estate under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956?

Statutory Framework

The Court undertook a detailed examination of the relevant statutory provisions:

Section 21 – Definition of “Dependants”

Section 21(vii) includes within the definition of dependants:

“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 or their estates.”

Section 22 – Maintenance of Dependants

Section 22 imposes a statutory obligation on the heirs of a deceased Hindu to maintain the dependents from the estate inherited by them. Sub-section (2) clarifies that even if a dependant does not receive a share in the estate by succession, she is still entitled to maintenance from those who inherit the estate.

Interpretation of “Any Widow of His Son”

The Supreme Court held that the phrase “any widow of his son” is clear, unambiguous, and admits of only one interpretation. The Court rejected the argument that the term refers only to widows of sons who predeceased the father-in-law.

The Court emphasised that:

• The statute does not use the words “widow of a predeceased son”.
• The legislature deliberately chose broader language to include all widows of sons, irrespective of when widowhood occurs.
• The timing of the son’s death is legally irrelevant.

The Court held that reading a restriction into the statute would amount to judicial legislation, which is impermissible.

Principles of Statutory Interpretation

The judgment strongly reaffirmed the literal rule of interpretation, citing authoritative precedents including:

• Crawford v. Spooner (1846)
• B. Premanand v. Mohan Koikal (2011)
• Vinod Kumar v. DM, Mau (2023)

The Court reiterated that when statutory language is plain and unambiguous, courts must give effect to it regardless of perceived hardship or inconvenience. Judges cannot “add, subtract, or mend” statutory provisions under the guise of interpretation.

Constitutional Perspective

The Supreme Court further held that any restrictive interpretation excluding widows who became widows after the father-in-law’s death would be constitutionally infirm.

Article 14 – Equality Before Law

The Court found that distinguishing between widows based on the timing of their husband’s death would be arbitrary and unreasonable, with no rational nexus to the object of the Act. Such classification would violate Article 14.

Article 21 – Right to Life with Dignity

The Court emphasised that denying maintenance to a widowed daughter-in-law could expose her to destitution, thereby infringing her right to live with dignity. Maintenance laws must be interpreted to advance social justice and protect vulnerable dependants.

Role of Traditional Hindu Law

While recognising that HAMA is a codifying statute with overriding effect, the Court referred to traditional Hindu law principles, including verses from Manu Smriti, to reinforce the moral and social obligation of family members to support women dependants.

The court observed:

"A son or the legal heirs are bound to maintain all the dependant persons out of estate inherited i.e. all persons whom the deceased was legally and morally bound to maintain. Therefore, on the death of son, it is the pious obligation of the father-in-law to maintain widowed daughter-in-law, if she is unable to maintain herself either on her own or through the property left behind by the deceased son. The Act does not envisage to rule out the above obligation of the father-in-law to maintain his widowed daughter-in-law, irrespective of the fact when she became a widow whether prior or after his death."

Decision of the Court

The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the High Court and held that:

• A widow of a son is a dependant under Section 21(vii) of HAMA
• The timing of widowhood is immaterial
• Geeta Sharma’s petition for maintenance is maintainable
• The Family Court must decide the claim on merits, including quantum of maintenance
• Both appeals were dismissed, and no order as to costs was passed.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court in Kanchana Rai v. Geeta Sharma (2026) has authoritatively held that a Hindu daughter-in-law who becomes a widow after the death of her father-in-law is a “dependant” under Section 21(vii) of HAMA and is entitled to claim maintenance from his estate under Section 22.

The judgment reinforces the welfare-oriented character of maintenance law, harmonises statutory interpretation with constitutional guarantees, and marks a progressive step in Indian family law jurisprudence.

Important Link

Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams