The Supreme Court recently clarified that a widowed daughter-in-law is entitled to seek maintenance from her father-in-law’s estate, even if she became a widow after his death.

A Bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and SVN Bhatti highlighted the moral and social responsibility of families to support women. Quoting the Manusmriti (Chapter 8, Verse 389), the Court said:

“No mother, no father, no wife, and no son deserves to be forsaken. A person who abandons these blameless relatives should be fined six hundred units by the king.”

The Court observed that the principle behind maintenance laws remains the same today: those who inherit property must support dependants who relied on the deceased.

Background of the Case

The dispute arose after the death of Mahendra Prasad in December 2021, who had three sons: Ranjit Sharma, Devinder Rai, and Rajeev Sharma. Ranjit Sharma passed away in March 2023, and his widow, Geeta Sharma, approached the family court seeking maintenance from her late father-in-law’s estate, claiming she could not support herself from her husband’s property or any other source.

The family court rejected her petition, stating she was not a widow at the time of her father-in-law’s death, and therefore not a “dependant.”

The High Court overturned this, noting that what matters is her current status as the widow of Mahendra Prasad’s son, not the timing of her husband’s death, and sent the case back for determination of the maintenance amount.

The Court clarified that the key question is whether a daughter-in-law who becomes a widow after her father-in-law’s death can be considered a “dependant” under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (HAMA).

Section 21 of HAMA defines “dependants,” including “any widow of his son,” without specifying that the widow must predecease the father-in-law. The Court held that the law’s plain language includes widows who lose their husbands after the father-in-law’s death.

The Bench emphasized that courts cannot rewrite or add words to a law. Denying maintenance simply because of timing would be unfair, arbitrary, and unconstitutional, violating Article 14 (equality before law) and Article 21 (right to life and dignity).

Citing traditional Hindu law, the Court noted that moral duties—like not abandoning close family members—support the principle of maintenance. Further, Section 22 of HAMA obliges heirs to maintain dependants from the estate, even if the dependant does not inherit property.

The Court distinguished Section 19 (maintenance during the lifetime of the father-in-law) from Section 22 (maintenance from the estate after death) and confirmed that Geeta Sharma is entitled to claim maintenance.

The Supreme Court dismissed both appeals, upholding the High Court’s decision that Geeta Sharma’s claim is maintainable.

The petitioners were represented by Senior Advocates V Giri, Arvind Nayyar, Abhishek Manu Singhvi and advocates B Shravanth Shanker, Rahul Narang, D Abhinav Rao. The respondents were represented by Senior Advocate Vikas Singh and a team of advocates including Varun Singh, Nitin Saluja, Deepeika Kalia, Alankriti Dwivedi, Somesa Gupta, Sudeep Chandra, and Khushi