Widow entitled to maintenance from father-in-law's estate: Supreme Court

A son or the legal heirs are bound to maintain all the dependent persons out of the estate inherited; that is, all people whom the deceased was legally and morally bound to maintain.

New Delhi: In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court on Tuesday held that a woman, who becomes a widow after the death of her father-in-law, is entitled to claim maintenance from his estate under the Hindu law.

A bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and SVN Bhatti held that the timing of the husband's death, whether it occurs before or after the father-in-law's demise, is "immaterial" for determining her status as a "dependant" under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (HAMA), 1956.

Putting the findings in simpler words, Justice Mithal, who authored the judgment, said, “All the heirs of the deceased Hindu are obliged to maintain the dependents of the deceased from the funds inherited out of the estate of the deceased.”

“We are clearly of the opinion that ‘any widow of the son’ of a deceased Hindu is a dependant within the meaning of Section 21 (vii) of the Act and is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 22 of the Act,” it held.

A son or the legal heirs are bound to maintain all the dependent persons out of the estate inherited; that is, all persons whom the deceased was legally and morally bound to maintain, it said.

“Therefore, on the death of a son, it is the pious obligation of the father-in-law to maintain a 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,” it said.

The case arose from a family dispute involving the estate of late Mahendra Prasad, who passed away in December 2021.

One of his sons, Ranjit Sharma, died later in March 2023. Following Ranjit’s death, his widow, Geeta Sharma, filed for maintenance from her father-in-law’s estate before a Family Court.

The Family Court initially dismissed her petition, reasoning that she was not a widow on the date of her father-in-law’s death and therefore did not qualify as a dependent.

However, the High Court reversed this decision, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court by other family members.

The top court held that there was no illegality in the High Court verdict “holding the petition of Respondent no.1, who is a widow of the son of the deceased, to be maintainable and in directing the Family Court to consider it on merits in accordance with law.”