Supreme Court: While considering this case concerning heirs/family members over issues surrounding the registered will of deceased M who died in December 2021, the Division Bench of Pankaj Mithal* and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ., held 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 (the Act) and is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 22 of the Act. The Court pointed out that Section 22 contemplates “maintenance of dependants” including “widowed daughter-in- law” from the estate of her father-in-law meaning thereby that a claim under Section 22 can be raised only after the death of the father-in-law.
The Court emphasised that a son or the legal heirs are bound to maintain all the dependant persons out of estate inherited i.e. all persons whom the deceased was legally and morally bound to maintain. Therefore, on the death of son, it is the pious obligation of the father-in-law to maintain widowed daughter-in-law, if she is unable to maintain herself either on her own or through the property left behind by the deceased son. The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act does not envisage to rule out the above obligation of the father-in-law to maintain his widowed daughter-in-law, irrespective of the fact when she became a widow whether prior or after his death.
Background:
M, who passed away in December 2021, had three sons, namely, R, who passed away in 2023, appellant’s husband D, and RS. It is alleged that M executed a registered Will on 18-07-2011, appointing the appellant, as the executor while bequeathing his properties in favour of her two sons, completely ignoring his own two sons namely R and RS.
Respondent 1, who is the wife of M’s deceased son R, applied for maintenance from the estate of her father-in-law, before the Family Court under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. The petition was dismissed by the Family Court as unmaintainable as Respondent 1 was not a widow on the date of death of M, since her husband, R was alive at the time of his father’s demise.
The High Court, set aside the order of the Family Court recording a categorical finding that the petition was maintainable as Respondent 1 was the widow of one of the sons of M and as such was a dependant. Accordingly, the High Court directed the Family Court to consider the matter on merit and to decide about the quantum of maintenance.
Aggrieved with the High Court’s verdict, the appellant approached the Supreme Court challenging the maintainability of the maintenance petition.
Court’s Assessment:
Perusing the facts of the case, the Court has to consider that whether a daughter-in-law, who becomes a widow after the death of her father-in-law, is a dependent upon the estate of the father-in- law and entitled to claim maintenance from his estate?
The Court noted that grant of maintenance of Hindus has been codified by enacting the Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act, 1956, which provides for adoption as well for the maintenance. “dependants” have been defined under Section 21 of the Act and clause (vii) states that- any widow of his son or of a son of his predeceased son, so long as she does not remarry: provided and to the extent that she is unable to obtain maintenance from her husband’s estate, or from her son or daughter, if any, or his or her estate; or in the case of a grandson’s widow, also from her father-in-law’s estate.
The Court pointed out that plain reading of the afore-stated provision defining “dependants” makes it crystal clear that the relatives of the deceased, namely, “any widow of his son” would be a dependant provided she is unable to maintain herself from her husband’s estate or from her son or her daughter’s estate and in the case of grandson’s widow, from her father-in-law’s estate. The Court pointed out that one of the relatives of the deceased Hindu who has been defined as a dependant is clearly “any widow of his son” meaning thereby a widow of the deceased son of the Hindu is a dependant irrespective of the time she becomes a widow.
The Court explained that definition in Section 21(vii) is quite clear and unambiguous. It is not open for any other meaning except that a “widow of the son” of the deceased is a dependant. In view of such a clear definition, it is not open for anyone to infer and assign any other meaning to the said definition so as to say that only a widow of the predeceased son of a Hindu would be covered by the said definition. The aforesaid definition nowhere uses the word “widow of a predeceased son”. It simply uses the words “any widow of a son”. The legislature in its wisdom has deliberately avoided to use the word “predeceased” before the “son” so as to include any widow of the son. The time of her becoming a widow or the death of the son is immaterial.
The Court further pointed out that Section 22 of the Act provides for the maintenance of dependants and casts an obligation upon all the heirs of the deceased Hindu to maintain the dependants of the deceased out of the estate inherited by them from the deceased. In simpler words, all the heirs of the deceased Hindu are obliged to maintain the dependants of the deceased from the funds inherited out of the estate of the deceased. Furthermore, Section 22(2) provides that where a dependant of the deceased Hindu has not obtained share in the estate of the Hindu either by testamentary or intestate succession, such a dependant shall be entitled to maintenance from those who take the estate. Therefore, anyone succeeding to the estate of the deceased Hindu is under an obligation to maintain the dependant of the deceased.
Relying on the principles of literal interpretation when the statute’s language is unambiguous, the Court stated that there is hardly any scope to interpret that the words “any widow of his son” used in Section 21 (vii) would mean “widow of his predeceased son” only. The courts cannot add or subtract any word from the text of the statute. The provisions of the statute cannot be re-written by the courts by assuming or inferring something which is not implicit from the plain language of the statute.
The Court further cautioned that any such restrictive interpretation would fail the test of constitutional validity under Article 14 of the Constitution. The classification sought to be made between widowed daughters-in-law based solely on the timing of the husband’s death, namely- (a) those whose husbands died during the lifetime of the father-in-law, and (b) those whose husbands died after him; is manifestly unreasonable and arbitrary. Such a classification bears no rational nexus with the object and purpose of the Act, which is to secure maintenance to dependants who are unable to maintain themselves. In both situations, the women are similarly situated in so far as the object of the Act is concerned, having suffered widowhood, being without spousal support, and facing comparable financial vulnerability. Denial of maintenance to one category based on a fortuitous circumstance beyond their control is manifestly arbitrary and violative of the guarantee of equality before law under Article 14 of the Constitution.
A contrary interpretation would also infringe upon Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life with dignity. Denying maintenance to a widowed daughter-in-law from the estate of her deceased father-in-law on a narrow or technical construction of the statute would expose her to destitution and social marginalization, thereby offending her fundamental right to live with dignity. The provisions of the Act must, therefore, be read purposively and in conformity with constitutional values, so as to advance social justice and protect the dignity of vulnerable dependants rather than defeat it.
Therefore, with the afore-stated assessment, the Court deemed it fit to dismiss the appeals.
[Kanchana Rai v. Geeta Sharma, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 59, decided on 13-1-2026]
*Judgment by Justice Pankaj Mithal
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner(s): Mr. V. Giri, Sr. Adv. Mr. Arvind Nayyar, Sr. Adv. Mr. B. Shravanth Shanker, AOR Mr. Rahul Narang, Adv. Mr. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. D. Abhinav Rao, AOR
For Respondent(s): Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Varun Singh, Adv. Mr. Nitin Saluja, AOR Ms. Deepeika Kalia, Adv. Ms. Alankriti Dwivedi, Adv. Ms. Somesa Gupta, Adv. Mr. Sudeep Chandra, Adv. Ms. Khushi, Adv.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
