The Supreme Court has ruled that “any widow of the son” of a deceased Hindu is a dependant within the meaning of Section 21 (vii) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, and is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 22 of the 1956 Act. The Court clarified that the timing of the son’s death is immaterial for determining her status as a “dependant” and her entitlement to claim maintenance from the estate of her deceased father-in-law under Section 22 of the 1956 Act.
The Apex Court, therefore, affirmed the High Court’s order, ruling that the maintenance petition filed by the respondent is maintainable, and directed the Family Court to proceed with considering the matter on its merits in accordance with the law.
A Two-Judge Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti observed that the language of Section 21(vii) is unambiguous and does not use the words “widow of a predeceased son”. The legislature deliberately avoided using the word “predeceased” to include any widow of a son, making the time of her becoming a widow immaterial.
The Bench reiterated the cardinal principle of literal interpretation, stating that where a provision is clear, it must be interpreted literally. It cited precedents like Crawford v. Spooner [(1846) 4 Moo IA 179], B. Premanand v. Mohan Koikal [(2011) 4 SCC 266], and Vinod Kumar v. DM, Mau [(2023) 19 SCC 126], to emphasize that courts cannot “add, and mend” or “make up deficiencies” left by the legislature.
The Bench opined that any restrictive interpretation would be unconstitutional. Classifying widowed daughters-in-law based on whether their husband died before or after the father-in-law is “manifestly unreasonable and arbitrary” and bears no rational nexus with the 1956 Act’s objective of providing maintenance to dependants.
At the same time, the Bench also observed that denying maintenance to a widowed daughter-in-law based on a technical construction would expose her to “destitution and social marginalization”, thereby offending her fundamental right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Bench clarified that Section 19 of the 1956 Act creates an obligation for a father-in-law to maintain his daughter-in-law during his lifetime. In contrast, Section 22 provides for the maintenance of “dependants” (including a widowed daughter-in-law) from the estate of the deceased, meaning a claim under Section 22 can only be raised after the father-in-law’s death.
Briefly, the dispute is among the family members of the late Dr. Mahendra Prasad, who had three sons: Ranjit Sharma (deceased), Devinder Rai (a pre-deceased son, husband of appellant), and Rajeev Sharma. Geeta Sharma, the respondent and wife of Ranjit Sharma, filed a petition for maintenance from the estate of her father-in-law, Dr. Mahendra Prasad, under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.
Noting that at the time of Dr. Prasad’s death, Geeta Sharma’s husband, Ranjit Sharma, was still alive, and she became a widow after her father-in-law’s demise, the Family Court dismissed her petition, ruling it was not maintainable because she was not a widow on the date of her father-in-law’s death.
However, the High Court overturned this decision, finding that the petition was maintainable as she was the widow of one of Dr. Prasad’s sons and therefore a “dependant”. The High Court directed the Family Court to decide the quantum of maintenance on merits.
Appearances:
Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi, V. Giri, and Arvind Nayyar, AORs D. Abhinav Rao, and B. Shravanth Shankar, along with Advocate Rahul Narang, for the Appellant
Senior Advocates Vikas Singh, AOR Nitin Saluja, along with Advocates Varun Singh, Deepeika Kalia, Alankriti Dwivedi, Somesa Gupta, Sudeep Chandra, and Khushi, for the Respondent
