“‘Compassionate Appointment Cannot Be Treated as Estate of the Deceased’: Chhattisgarh High Court Sets Aside Maintenance Order Against Daughter-in-Law”
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Chhattisgarh Division Bench of Justice Rajani Dubey and Justice Sachin Singh Rajput has set aside a judgment and decree directing a woman to pay maintenance to her mother-in-law. The Court held that a compassionate appointment secured after the death of the woman’s husband does not form part of the deceased’s estate and therefore does not create a legal obligation to provide maintenance under Section 22 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. The respondent was granted liberty to seek alternative remedies under law.
The matter arose from an appeal filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Court Act, 1984, challenging a judgment and decree dated 09.05.2023 passed by the Family Court, Manendragarh, District Manendragarh Chirmiri Bharatpur, Chhattisgarh. The trial court had allowed an application under Section 22 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 and directed the appellant (daughter-in-law) to pay a monthly maintenance of ₹10,000 to the respondent (mother-in-law).
The facts of the case indicate that the respondent’s husband, Bhagwan Das, died in the year 2000. He was employed with SECL, Hasdeo Area. Following his death, their elder son Omkar was given compassionate appointment. After Omkar’s death, his wife, the appellant, was granted compassionate appointment and is currently working as a general labourer at the Central Hospital, Manendragarh.
The appellant had submitted an affidavit dated 10.06.2020 before receiving her appointment, wherein she declared the respondent to be a dependent and undertook to maintain her if appointed. However, following her appointment, the appellant allegedly began residing with her own parents and ceased to maintain the respondent.
The respondent, who is elderly and reportedly unfit to work, initially approached the Personnel Department of Hasdeo Area seeking maintenance. Upon refusal by the appellant, the respondent filed an application before the Family Court seeking ₹20,000 as monthly maintenance and ₹50,000 as litigation expenses.
In response, the appellant denied the allegations and stated that the respondent was being maintained by another son, Umesh Kushwaha, who earns ₹50,000 per month through online work. The respondent was also reported to be receiving a monthly pension of ₹3,000 and an annual income of ₹1,00,000 from agriculture.
The appellant stated that her late husband had taken loans for agricultural land, and she was repaying ₹3,00,000 post-appointment. She also submitted that the respondent had received ₹7 lakhs as an insurance claim where she was the nominee. Additionally, the appellant argued that she was the sole provider for her six-year-old daughter and earned only ₹26,000 monthly.
The Family Court framed the following issues for determination:
- Whether the respondent (plaintiff before Family Court) was unable to maintain herself?
- Whether the appellant (defendant before Family Court) was liable to maintain the respondent, and if so, to what extent?
- Relief and costs.
The Family Court held in favour of the respondent and awarded maintenance of ₹10,000 per month. Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed the present appeal.
The appellant argued that the Family Court’s judgment was contrary to law and that her employment obtained through compassionate grounds could not be considered part of the deceased’s estate for the purpose of imposing maintenance obligations under Section 22 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. She relied on multiple precedents, including Krishna Bai v. Priya Thakre (AIR 2020 Chhattisgarh 170) and Basanti Bai v. Ajit Kumar Bhatt (AIR 2023 Chhattisgarh 63).
The respondent, through counsel, supported the Family Court’s judgment, contending that she was dependent, elderly, unwell, and receiving only a nominal pension. It was argued that the maintenance granted was reasonable, especially in view of the appellant’s affidavit committing to maintain the respondent.
The Division Bench stated, “Factual scenario in this case is more or less not in dispute. However, the core issue around which this case revolves is to whether the respondent/mother-in-law is entitled to receive the maintenance from the respondent/daughter-in-law by filing an application under section 22 of the Act of 1956.”
The Bench recorded that this precise issue was previously considered by the same High Court in Bharat Lal Sharma and another v. Smt. Mithlesh Sharma @ Priyanka Sharma (2017 SCC OnLine Chh 1575), and reiterated the legal principle established therein.
“Compassionate appointment is never available to a Government servant during the tenure of his service. It is a status or benefit which a definite class or dependents of the deceased are entitled for under the executive policy of the Government,” the Court noted, citing the earlier Division Bench ruling.
The Court quoted the authoritative portion of the 2017 decision:
“Neither the deceased can dispose of this benefit through a will nor the said facility of compassionate appointment can be treated as estate of the deceased. Therefore, the respondent being a recipient of the compassionate appointment, which is not part of the estate of the deceased, is not obliged in law to maintain the appellants from the salary which she is receiving through compassionate appointment.”
It was also observed: “The respondent may be morally liable and duty bound to maintain her parents-in-law but the Court cannot compel her to grant such maintenance under Section 22 (1) of the Act.”
The Bench acknowledged that the appellant had provided an affidavit to support the respondent’s claim but found that such an undertaking does not alter the statutory position under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.
The Court also referred to the judgments in Smt. Violet Issac v. Union of India (1991) 1 SCC 725 and Jodh Singh v. Union of India (1980) 4 SCC 306 to reinforce the principle that benefits like compassionate appointments cannot be classified as inheritable estate.
“The proposition of law laid down in case of Bharat Lal Sharma (Supra) has been reiterated in cases of Krishna Bai (Supra) and Basanti Bai (Supra). In light of the settled legal position, we do not see any reason to take a different view.”
The Court concluded by stating, “In this view of the matter the impugned judgment and decree is liable to be set aside and hereby set aside. However, the respondent will be at liberty to workout her remedy available under law. Order accordingly.”
The appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree dated 09.05.2023 of the Family Court, Manendragarh, was set aside in its entirety.
The Court issued the directive: “Appeal thus allowed. No order as to cost.”
It further ordered: “Preparation of decree to follow accordingly.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellant: Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate
For the Respondents: Ms. Priyanka Mehta, Advocate
Case Title: Smt. Neelu v. Smt. Urmila Devi
Neutral Citation: 2025:CGHC:18288-DB
Case Number: FA(MAT) No. 179 of 2023
Bench: Justice Rajani Dubey, Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
[Read/Download order]
