A Widowed Daughter-in-Law Without Means Must Be Maintained by Her Father-in-Law if He Holds the Husband’s Estate: Jharkhand High Court

“Once the Coparcenary Property Is in Possession of the Father-in-Law, the Obligation to Maintain the Dependant Follows by Law”, In a significant ruling Jharkhand High Court upheld the Family Court’s direction requiring a father-in-law and brother-in-law to pay monthly maintenance to a widowed daughter-in-law and her two minor children. The Court found that the appellants were in possession of the joint family estate and had failed to maintain the dependants, even though they were heirs to the deceased's property.

The Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Rajesh Kumar ruled that the maintenance awarded under Sections 19 and 22 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 was lawful and necessary, as the widow had no independent income, and her husband’s estate was being withheld by the very persons opposing the claim.

"Where the father-in-law is in possession of coparcenary property, and the widow has no means of her own, the obligation under Section 19 arises with full force." — observed the Court.

Anita Das, the legally wedded wife of the deceased Jyotish Kumar Das, filed a maintenance petition after being driven out of her matrimonial home along with her children following her husband’s death in January 2022. The couple was married in 2007, and had two children — Ritesh (13) and Sonam (3).

She alleged physical and emotional abuse, demands for dowry, and that after her husband's demise, the appellants — her father-in-law (Surendra Das) and brother-in-law (Uttam Kumar Das) — forcibly evicted her from the home built by her late husband, seized documents, and refused to support her or the children. Forced to live at her parental home, she initiated proceedings before the Family Court, Jamtara, seeking maintenance.

The Family Court found her entitled to ₹3,000/month for herself and ₹1,000/month for each child, starting from the date of the petition. The appellants challenged this order, contending that they had no legal obligation to support her, citing old age, disability, and lack of sufficient income.

The principal legal issue was whether the father-in-law and brother-in-law, as heirs in possession of the deceased husband’s estate, could be held liable to pay maintenance under Sections 19 and 22 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.

“A Hindu wife, after the death of her husband, shall be entitled to be maintained by her father-in-law, provided she is unable to maintain herself out of her own earnings or other property, or from the estate of her husband or her natal family,” — quoted the Bench, referring to Section 19(1).

The Court emphasized that the statutory scheme under Section 19 is triggered only when all other means of sustenance are exhausted, and that the widow had specifically pleaded and proved that she had no such support.

“The widow had no access to her husband’s estate, no independent means, and her father was not financially capable — thus, the conditions under Section 19 stood clearly fulfilled.”

The Court also examined Section 22, which imposes a duty on heirs of a deceased Hindu to maintain his dependants from the inherited estate:

“Once the estate of the deceased is inherited — whether through intestate succession or testamentary transfer — a dependant has a pre-existing right to claim maintenance from the estate,” the Court observed.

The appellants’ plea that the estate had not been partitioned or that they had insufficient share was found to be untenable, as they were actively cultivating the land and residing in the house constructed by the deceased.

The appellants claimed that the father-in-law was disabled and 65 years old, and that the brother-in-law was a student, hence incapable of providing support. The Court found these contentions contradicted by the evidence:

“The evidence shows that the appellants are in occupation of agricultural land, possess a pucca house, and received proceeds from LIC policies of the deceased, which were not shared with the widow or children.”

The Court further rejected the suggestion that the widow had fabricated the case to harass her in-laws. It noted that not only had the appellants failed to provide any maintenance, but the minor son had dropped out of school, and no support — financial, educational, or otherwise — was being extended.

“It is evident from the record that despite being in possession of joint property and being legal heirs, the appellants have failed to discharge their statutory obligation.”

The High Court upheld the Family Court’s conclusion that the agricultural land in question was joint and unpartitioned, and that the widow’s share was effectively denied. In doing so, it quoted with approval the Family Court’s observation:

“The agricultural land among the petitioners and respondents has not been partitioned and the share of the husband of the petitioner is under the occupation of the respondents. Yet, the petitioners are not being maintained.”

Regarding the quantum of maintenance, the Court noted:

“There is no straitjacket formula. The Family Court rightly considered the area under cultivation, the standard of living, and the cost of basic necessities before awarding a modest and reasonable amount.”

Reiterating the limits of appellate jurisdiction, the Court cited the Supreme Court’s principle from Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha, (1980) 2 SCC 593:

“An appellate power interferes not when the order appealed is not right but only when it is clearly wrong.”

The High Court held that the Family Court’s order was neither perverse nor legally unsustainable, and therefore no interference was justified:

“The learned Family Judge has appreciated the oral and documentary evidence with judicial propriety. The findings are reasoned, lawful, and supported by record.”

The Jharkhand High Court’s ruling marks a firm affirmation of the statutory rights of widowed daughters-in-law and minor children under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, especially when male heirs seek to retain property without assuming corresponding legal responsibilities.

“The obligation under Sections 19 and 22 is not optional — where estate passes to heirs, so does the duty to maintain dependants of the deceased.”

This judgment reinforces that family members cannot retain the benefit of inheritance while denying the widow and her children their rightful support, especially when they are rendered destitute and excluded from the matrimonial estate.

Date of Decision: 10/06/2025