In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has held that a widowed daughter-in-law is entitled to claim maintenance from her father-in-law under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, even if she chooses not to live in her matrimonial home. The court stated that “it is not a mandatory condition of law that for a daughter-in-law to claim maintenance, she must first agree to live at her matrimonial home.”
The ruling came in the matter of First Appeal No. 696 of 2013, in which the appellant, Shree Rajpati, challenged the decision of the Family Court, Agra, awarding a monthly maintenance of Rs. 3,000 to the respondent, Smt. Bhuri Devi. The bench, comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh, partially allowed the appeal, reducing the maintenance amount to Rs. 1,000 per month, as per the interim order dated December 5, 2013.
Case Background
The case revolves around the maintenance claim filed by Smt. Bhuri Devi, the widowed daughter-in-law of the appellant, Shree Rajpati. Bhuri Devi’s husband, who was employed as a daily wage worker with the Irrigation Department, was murdered on November 20, 1999. Following his death, the respondent claimed that she had no source of income and had not remarried, and thus sought maintenance from her father-in-law.
Bhuri Devi alleged that the appellant received Rs. 80,000 from the Irrigation Department as terminal dues after her husband’s death but misappropriated the funds. She further contended that the appellant owned sufficient agricultural land, which her deceased husband would have inherited. The Family Court, Agra, had initially awarded maintenance of Rs. 3,000 per month, prompting the appellant to challenge the order.
Key Legal Issues
The appeal primarily raised two legal issues:
1. Entitlement of a widowed daughter-in-law to maintenance: Under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, the court had to determine whether the respondent was entitled to maintenance from her father-in-law.
2. Conditions for the grant of maintenance: The court examined whether the fact that the daughter-in-law chose to live with her parents rather than her matrimonial family could disqualify her from receiving maintenance.
Court’s Observations and Decision
The High Court noted that there was no conclusive evidence to support the claim that the appellant had misappropriated the Rs. 80,000 received as terminal dues. Both parties relied on oral evidence, and neither could produce documentary proof regarding the amount in question. However, the court did not find any reason to doubt that the appellant had made a fixed deposit of Rs. 20,000 in favour of the respondent.
Addressing the objection regarding the remarriage and employment of the respondent, the court observed that these claims were unsubstantiated. The court stated, “Neither the factum of remarriage was proved nor was it admitted. Both the respondent and the alleged spouse denied any marriage in their testimonies. No doubt emerged in their cross-examination.”
On the core issue of the daughter-in-law’s entitlement to maintenance, the court made a significant observation: “The widowed daughter-in-law of the appellant was living separately, that too with her parent, may not be a circumstance as may disentitle her to claim maintenance from her father-in-law, in entirety.” The court further emphasized that the societal context must be considered, stating, “In the societal context in which law must be applied, it is not uncommon for widowed ladies to live with their parents for varied reasons and circumstances.”
The bench concluded that the respondent, Smt. Bhuri Devi, was indeed entitled to maintenance from her father-in-law under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. However, considering the appellant’s age (70 years) and his dependence on his sons, along with the interim relief granted earlier, the court reduced the maintenance amount to Rs. 1,000 per month.
Case Details
Case Number: First Appeal No. 696 of 2013
– Bench: Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh
– Appellant: Shree Rajpati, represented by J.C. Sharma and Ravindra Kumar Pandey
– Respondent: Smt. Bhuri Devi, represented by Hitesh Pachori
