Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a petition filed by father-in-law (petitioner) challenging trial court’s order awarding Rs. 3,000 per month as maintenance to widow daughter-in-law (respondent), a single-judge bench of Hirdesh, J., reaffirmed that, under Mahomedan law, a father-in-law is not obligated to support his daughter-in-law financially and set aside the maintenance order.
In the instant matter, the respondent filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) seeking maintenance of Rs. 40,000 per month from her father-in-law. The respondent got married to petitioner’s son on 14-06-2011, who passed away June 30-06-2015. She has two daughters from this marriage. The trial court awarded her Rs. 3,000 per month as maintenance, which was affirmed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri, vide order dated 21-01-2022.
Aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner challenged the same and argued that under Muslim law, a father-in-law is not liable to maintain his son’s widow. The main issue in the instant matter is whether a father-in-law can be legally obligated to pay maintenance to his son’s widow under the DV Act, especially in light of Muslim personal law.
The petitioner cited Mulla’s Principles of Mahomedan Law and precedents Mahomed Abdul Aziz Hidayat v. Khairunnissa Abdul Gani, 1948 SCC OnLine Bom 67 and Shabnam Parveen v. State of W.B., 2017 SCC OnLine Cal 16119, where the High Court supported the view that a father-in-law is not obligated to provide maintenance to his daughter-in-law. It was further contended that the provisions of the DV Act should not override established principles of personal law, specifically under Section 36 of the DV Act, which states the Act is supplementary and not in derogation of other laws. However, the respondent supported the maintenance order and argued for its necessity for her and her daughters’ welfare.
The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner and held that under Mahomedan Law, a father-in-law is not bound to provide maintenance to his son’s widow. The Court referred to Section 36 of the DV Act, which states that the DV Act’s provisions do not override other laws in force. The Court also relied on precedents cited, which affirmed that Muslim law does not require a father-in-law to maintain his son’s widow.
The Court held that the petitioner cannot be compelled to provide maintenance to the respondent. Consequently, the Court set aside both the orders passed by the trial and appellate courts, requiring the petitioner to pay maintenance.
[Bashir Khan v. Ishrat Bano, 2024 SCC OnLine MP 7077, Decided on 24-10-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Akshat Kumar Jain, Counsel for the Petitioner
Mr. Romesh Pratap Singh, Counsel for the Respondent
