Source: Allahabad High Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justices Saumitra Dayal Singh and Donadi Ramesh held that merely because the daughter-in-law was not living in the matrimonial home this would not disentitle her from maintenance.         

• The Allahabad High Court held this in the case of Shree Rajpati v. Smt. Bhuri Devi. 

What is the Background of Shree Rajpati v. Smt. Bhuri Devi Case? 

• The husband of the respondent was working as a daily wage employee of the Irrigation Department. 
• The husband was murdered, and the respondent did not remarry. 
• She claims she had no source of survival and pleaded that an amount of Rs. 80, 000 was paid to the appellant, who is the father of the husband of respondent.  
• She has further alleged that the appellant has misappropriated the amount paid to him and that he has sufficient agricultural holdings. 
• Thus, a claim for maintenance was made by the respondent against the appellant. 
• It is the case of the appellant that no amount was received by him towards the terminal dues arising from the death of his son. 
• It is also claimed by the appellant that he made a term deposit of Rs. 20,000 in favor of the respondent and that she has refused to live in the matrimonial home and works as a house help.  
• It is also his case that the respondent is gainfully employed at a place. 
• The decision of Lower Courts: 
  • The Learned Trial Court awarded monthly maintenance of Rs. 3,000 per month to the respondent. 
  • Upon appeal filed against the above order interim order was passed providing for payment of interim maintenance at the rate Rs. 1,000/ per month.   
• Thus, the matter reached the High Court.   

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The High Court observed that there is no evidence that the appellant had misappropriated the amount of Rs. 80,000. 
• Also, there is no doubt about the claim that the appellant had made a fixed deposit of Rs. 20,000 in favor of respondent. 
• Further, the claim of the appellant was that the respondent had remarried or was gainfully employed at a particular place is unbelievable.   
• Thus, the Court held that the respondent was entitled to the claim of maintenance under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA). 
• For calculating the amount of maintenance, the principle contained in Section 23 of HAMA should be considered. 
• The fact that the widowed daughter in law was living separately from the father in law shall not disentitle her to claim maintenance from her father in law. 
• In the societal context in which law must be applied, it is not uncommon for widowed ladies to live with her parents, for varied reasons and circumstances. 
• Merely because the lady may have made that choice may neither lead us to the conclusion that she had separated from her matrimonial home without reasonable cause nor that she would have sufficient means to survive on her own. 
• The Court here refused to interfere with the interim order passed by the Court.

What is Maintenance?

• The maintenance generally covers the expenses for essentials for the substance of life. However, it is not merely a right for survival of the claimant. 
• The term 'Maintenance' has also been defined under Section 3(b) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. 
• It includes provision for food, clothing, shelter, and basic needs such as education and medical expenses 
• The provision for maintenance is contained in several Legislations:

What are the Provisions Governing Maintenance Granted to Widowed Daughter-in –Law? 

• Section 19 provides for maintenance of widowed daughter-in-law. 
• Section 19 (1) provides that a Hindu wife shall be entitled to maintenance from her father-in-law after the death of her husband. 
• The Proviso however adds a rider and provides that maintenance shall be granted only if: 
  • She is unable to maintain herself from her own earnings or her own property, or 
  • Where she has no property of her own, she is unable to obtain maintenance from: 
    • Estate of her husband or her father or mother, or 
    • her son or daughter, if any, or his or her estate.  
• Section 19 (2) provides that the obligation under Sub section (1) shall cease if: 
  • The father- in- law has no means to do so from any coparcenary property in his possession out of which daughter-in-law has not obtained any share. 
  • On remarriage of the daughter-in-law.

What are the Case Laws on Maintenance Granted to the Widowed Daughter-in-Law? 

• Abdul Khader v. Tasleem Jamela Agadi (2024):  
  • The Karnataka High Court in this case discussed if a daughter-in-law could claim maintenance under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). 
  • The Court held that on close reading of Section 125 of CrPC it can be inferred that a daughter-in-law cannot claim maintenance against her parents-in-law. 
  • The Court observed that provisions of law envisage that a wife can lay a claim for maintenance. 
  • Thus, in the absence of any power vested to the Court under Section 125 of CrPC to entertain a petition the Court cannot allow relief to daughter-in-law under Section 125 of CrPC.    
• Laxmi & Anr v. Shyam Pratap & Anr (2022):  
  • This judgment was delivered by the Delhi High Court wherein the widowed daughter-in-law claimed maintenance from her father-in-law. 
  • The Court held that the daughter-in-law should not claim maintenance from her father-in-law provided he has inherited some estate of her husband.  
  • The Court in this case denied maintenance to the widowed daughter-in-law. 
• Dhanna Sahu v. Smt. Sitabai Sahu (2023):  
  • The Chhattisgarh High Court in this case elaborated the law on maintenance to the widowed daughter-in-law. 
  • The Court held that in order to grant maintenance under Section 19 of HAMA the first condition is that the maintenance can be claimed from the father-in-law by the widowed daughter-in-law to the extent that she is unable to maintain herself out of her own earnings. 
  • The Court held that the maintenance shall be granted to widowed daughter-in-law only if the above condition is satisfied.