HAMA | Widowed Daughter-In-Law Can Seek Maintenance From Father-In-Law And Brother-In-Law | Jharkhand HC Upholds Her Right Under Sections 19 And 22
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Jharkhand Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Rajesh Kumar dismissed an appeal challenging the award of monthly maintenance to a widowed daughter-in-law and her minor children. The Court affirmed the order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamtara, which had directed the appellants to pay monthly maintenance under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. The Bench held that the widow and her minor children were legally entitled to receive maintenance from the father-in-law and brother-in-law, and that the Family Court had rightly considered both the factual and legal aspects while granting the maintenance.
In rejecting the appeal, the Court concluded that the lower court's findings were well-supported by the evidence on record and applicable legal provisions. The Bench found no merit in the grounds raised by the appellants and affirmed the Family Court's judgment as being legally sound. Consequently, the Court declined to interfere with the impugned order and confirmed the maintenance directions.
The appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 was filed by two appellants, the father-in-law and brother-in-law of the petitioner, challenging the order dated 11.09.2023 passed in Original Maintenance Case No.58 of 2022. The Family Court had directed payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month to the widow and Rs. 1,000 per month each to her two minor children from the date of filing of the original maintenance case.
The petitioner, a Hindu widow, claimed that her marriage to the deceased was solemnised in 2007, and that two children were born from the wedlock. The first child was a son aged 13 years and the second a daughter aged 3 years. She alleged that after a brief period of cordiality, her in-laws started demanding Rs. 50,000 from her for purchasing a motorcycle. Her father paid Rs. 25,000 at the time. Subsequently, she faced further demands and torture related to dowry, including a demand for Rs. 1,00,000.
After her husband's death on 24.01.2022, the widow was allegedly treated like a maid and denied food and medicine. The house constructed by her husband, consisting of two bedrooms, a verandah, staircase, and toilet, was occupied by her in-laws, and she was ousted from it along with her children. Her personal documents including passbook, Aadhaar card, PAN card, and death certificate of her husband were allegedly taken by her in-laws. She lodged a complaint on 06.05.2022 and moved to her parental home with her children.
She submitted that the respondents were earning around Rs. 1,000 per day as masons and produced about 500 mounds of paddy per annum, generating approximately Rs. 2 lakhs annually. She sought maintenance of Rs. 10,000 per month for herself and Rs. 5,000 per month for each child.
She examined herself and four other witnesses including her brother, father, sister, and son. The witnesses supported her claims regarding harassment, ousting, and the in-laws’ income and property.
The appellants, on the other hand, examined three witnesses including appellant no.1 himself. They denied the allegations and contended that appellant no.1 was 65 years old and disabled, and appellant no.2 was a student. They contended that the properties in question were jointly owned and insufficient to support the claimed maintenance. They also submitted that they were willing to support the petitioners if they returned home.
The appellants also argued that the Family Court failed to appreciate that the petitioner was not entitled to maintenance under Sections 19 and 22 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, and that the evidence of the appellants had not been properly considered.
The Family Court, after evaluating oral and documentary evidence, including records of land ownership and witness testimony, concluded that the agricultural properties were joint and had not been partitioned. The court held that the petitioners were not being maintained by the respondents and were therefore entitled to maintenance.
The High Court recorded that: "It is evident from the evidence of the witnesses that the petitioner is living in her maike with her minor children and the appellants have not maintained them having the landed property after death of her husband."
The Court noted the testimony of the widow, which stated: "She has deposed that her husband in his life time had constructed a house... but after his death, the appellants with a view to grab the entire property captured the said house and they compelled her to leave the house with her minor children."
Regarding Section 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, the Court cited: "While the first part of sub-section (1) provides that a Hindu wife shall be entitled to maintenance after the death of her husband, by her father-in-law, such right is available and limited to the extent when she is unable to maintain herself out of her own earnings or other property..."
The Court acknowledged the Family Court’s reasoning: "The agricultural land among the petitioner and the respondents have not been partitioned and the share of the petitioner's husband in the agricultural land is also under the possession and occupation of the respondents but the petitioners are not being maintained by the respondents and therefore... the petitioners are entitled to the maintenance from the respondents."
On Section 22 of the Act, the Court stated: "...the heirs of a deceased Hindu are bound to maintain the dependants of the deceased out of the estate inherited by them from the deceased."
The Court found the Family Judge had examined the question of maintenance in the light of the statutory provisions and the facts: "The learned Family Judge has appreciated each and every document and testimonies of witnesses of both sides and has categorically observed... the petitioners are entitled to the maintenance from the respondents."
The Court concluded: "...the judgment passed by the learned Family Judge is not coming under the fold of the perversity, since, the conscious consideration has been made of the evidences, both ocular and documentary..."
The Court issued the following final directive: "This Court, therefore, is of the view that the judgment dated 11.09.2023 passed in Original Maintenance Case No.58 of 2022 by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamtara need no interference and, accordingly, the instant appeal stands dismissed."
Further, the Court disposed of all pending interlocutory applications: "Pending I.As, if any, stands disposed of."
The judgment also incorporated the Family Court’s order, which directed: "...the respondents are directed to pay Rs. 3000/- per month maintenance allowance to the petitioner no.1 and Rs. 1000/- per month each for the maintenance of the Petitioner no. 2 and 3, from the date of filing of this case u/s 19 r/w 22 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956."
The High Court found no error in these directions and held: "The issue of maintenance of minor son, daughter and widow (respondents herein) has well been considered... the learned Family Judge on consideration of the evidence... has come to conclusion that by virtue of Sections 19 and 22... the petitioners are entitled to the maintenance..."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Appellants: Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Advocate
Case Title: XXX Vs YYY
Neutral Citation: 2025: JHHC:15002-DB
Case Number: First Appeal No.307 of 2023
Bench: Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Rajesh Kumar
