The Jharkhand High Court, in a decision delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Rajesh Kumar, has affirmed that a widowed daughter-in-law is entitled to claim maintenance from her father-in-law and brother-in-law under Sections 19 and 22 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA), provided specific statutory conditions are satisfied. The decision came in a first appeal filed against the order of the Family Court, Jamtara, which had directed the payment of monthly maintenance to the widow and her two minor children.
Background
The original maintenance proceedings were instituted under Sections 19 and 22 of HAMA before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamtara. The widow, along with her minor son and daughter, had approached the court alleging that after the death of her husband in January 2022, she was ousted from the matrimonial home by her in-laws, denied access to her husband’s property and income, and left without financial support.
The Family Court, after considering oral and documentary evidence, directed the father-in-law and brother-in-law of the petitioner to pay ₹3000 per month to the widow and ₹1000 per month to each of the two minor children, with effect from the date of filing the maintenance case.
Appellants’ Contentions
Challenging the Family Court’s order, the appellants contended that:
- The trial court failed to properly consider the evidence presented by them and gave undue weight to the petitioner’s evidence.
- The widow was not entitled to maintenance under Section 19 or 22 of HAMA, as the appellants had no sufficient income or means to provide support.
- The father-in-law was an aged, disabled person without a regular source of livelihood, and the brother-in-law was a student.
- The petition was filed with mala fide intent to harass and pressurize the appellants.
- The family properties were jointly held and insufficient to meet the maintenance amounts ordered by the court.
High Court’s Analysis
The High Court noted that notices had been served on the respondents (the widow and her children), but they chose not to appear during the appellate proceedings. The Bench carefully examined the findings of the Family Court, the pleadings, and the evidence on record.
Referring to Section 19 of HAMA, the Court reiterated the statutory obligation of a father-in-law to maintain a widowed daughter-in-law if she is unable to maintain herself from her own earnings or property, or from the estate of her husband, parents, or children. Similarly, under Section 22, dependants of a deceased Hindu are entitled to maintenance from the heirs who inherit the estate.
The Court observed:
“In order to get maintenance from the father-in-law, the widowed daughter-in-law is required to specifically plead and prove… that all other sources of income maintenance stated in sub-section (1) [of Section 19] are not available to her.”
The Court noted that the Family Court had found, based on oral and documentary evidence, that the petitioner had no source of income and was residing with her father, while the appellants had access to unpartitioned agricultural lands and had not maintained the widow or her children after the husband’s death.
The Family Court had also found that the appellants cultivated approximately 500 mounds of paddy per year, with an estimated value of ₹2 lakh, and had received proceeds from an LIC policy upon the deceased’s death. The lands in question were jointly recorded in the name of the great-grandfather of the parties and had not been formally partitioned, meaning the widow had a share in the estate.
High Court’s Conclusion
The Bench concluded that the Family Court had rightly appreciated the evidence and applied the law. It held that the widow and her children were entitled to maintenance under the statutory provisions, given that they were dependents with no independent source of income or support, and the appellants had inherited property from the deceased.
The Court held:
“This Court… is of the view that the judgment passed by the learned Family Judge is not coming under the fold of perversity, since conscious consideration has been made of the evidences, both ocular and documentary…”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Family Court’s order dated 11 September 2023 in Original Maintenance Case No. 58 of 2022.
Legal Provision Cited:
- Section 19, Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956: Maintenance of widowed daughter-in-law.
- Section 22, Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956: Maintenance of dependents from the estate inherited by heirs.
