The Delhi High Court has ruled that a widowed daughter-in-law is entitled to claim maintenance from the estate of her deceased father-in-law, specifically from his share of coparcenary property, even if the father-in-law passed away before her husband. A Division Bench of Justice Anil Khetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar set aside a Family Court order, holding that the claim for maintenance is a statutory right that survives the father-in-law and is enforceable against his estate.
Appearing for the appellant was Senior Advocate Mr. Vikas Singh. The respondents were represented by Senior Advocate Mr. Parag P. Tripathi and Senior Advocate Mr. Trideep Pais.
Background of the Case
The case involved an appeal filed by a widowed daughter-in-law against a judgment dated August 27, 2024, from the Family Court, South-East District, Saket. The appellant’s husband died on March 2, 2023. Her father-in-law had passed away earlier on December 27, 2021.
The appellant filed a petition for maintenance under Sections 19, 21, 22, and 23 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA). The Family Court dismissed her petition, finding it non-maintainable under Section 22 of the Act. The appellant then challenged this dismissal before the Delhi High Court.
The central legal question before the High 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 coparcenary property of her deceased father-in-law.”
Court’s Analysis and Interpretation of HAMA
The High Court conducted a detailed analysis of the relevant provisions of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, to adjudicate the matter.
Section 19: Maintenance of Widowed Daughter-in-Law
The court first examined Section 19 of the HAMA. It noted that Section 19(1) grants a widowed daughter-in-law a “statutory right to claim maintenance from her father-in-law.” However, Section 19(2) places a crucial restriction on this obligation. The judgment states, “The provision limits the liability of the father-in-law only to the extent of his coparcenary property.” The court clarified that if the father-in-law possesses no coparcenary property, the daughter-in-law has no enforceable right to maintenance from his self-acquired assets. The liability is not personal but is tied to the existence of coparcenary property.
Sections 21 and 22: Status as a ‘Dependant’
The bench then turned to Section 21, which defines “dependants.” The court observed that Section 21(vii) expressly includes the “widow of his son” in the definition. This provision, the court found, entitles a widowed daughter-in-law to claim maintenance from her father-in-law’s estate, provided she is unable to maintain herself from her husband’s estate or her own resources.
The court emphasized the significance of the phrase “also from her father-in-law’s estate” in the provision. It observed, “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… the expression, ‘also from her father-in-law’s estate’, is indicative of the legislative intent to ensure that the liability arising out of the said clause is not merely confined to the father-in-law rather it survives as an enforceable claim against his estate.”
Further, Section 22 of HAMA binds the heirs of a deceased Hindu to maintain the dependants out of the estate they inherit.
Section 28: Enforceability Against Transferees
The court also cited Section 28 of HAMA, which ensures that the right to maintenance can be enforced against a transferee of the estate if the transfer was gratuitous or if the transferee had notice of the right. This, the court noted, “operates as a safeguard ensuring that the widow’s statutory right remains operable even against evasion via transfers.”
Legislative Intent and Social Welfare
The judgment characterized the HAMA as “quintessentially a social welfare legislation” designed to protect vulnerable persons. The court stated that its provisions must be interpreted in a way that advances the rights of a widowed daughter-in-law. “To ensure that a destitute widowed daughter-in-law is not deprived of maintenance, especially in circumstances where her father-in-law has left behind an estate, the words in Section 19(1) of the HAMA cannot be construed narrowly,” the bench observed.
The court concluded that a conjoint reading of Sections 19, 21, 22, and 28 firmly establishes the widowed daughter-in-law’s claim for maintenance against her father-in-law’s estate. It also noted that the HAMA converted what was a moral duty under ancient Hindu scriptures into a statutory legal obligation.
Final Decision
The High Court set aside the impugned order of the Family Court, affirming that the appellant’s maintenance petition was maintainable. While the appellant’s counsel requested interim maintenance, the court declined to pass such an order, instead directing the Family Court to “make sincere endeavours for expeditious disposal of the application.”
The parties were directed to appear before the Family Court on September 9, 2025. The appeal was disposed of with these directions.
