“Any Widow Of The Son” Is A Dependent Entitled To Maintenance From Father-In-Law’s Estate Under Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act: Supreme Court

The Court was hearing civil appeals arising from a judgment of the Delhi High Court which had held that a maintenance petition filed by a widowed daughter-in-law was maintainable under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, and had directed the Family Court to decide the claim on merits.

A Bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti, while dismissing the appeals, upheld the interpretation adopted by the High Court and clarified the scope of the statutory provisions governing maintenance of dependants, held: “Section 21 of the Act, as stated earlier, is only a defining section which defines the “dependants” of the deceased Hindu. 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 appellants were represented by Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, while the respondents were represented by Senior Advocate Vikas Singh.

Background

The dispute arose among family members of a deceased Hindu male, who had executed a registered Will during his lifetime. After his death, inter se disputes arose regarding succession to his estate.

One of the respondents, who was the widow of one of the deceased’s sons, filed a petition before the Family Court seeking maintenance from the estate of her father-in-law under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. At the time of the father-in-law’s death, her husband was alive and passed away subsequently.

The Family Court dismissed the petition as not maintainable, holding that the claimant was not a widow on the date of the death of the father-in-law. In appeal, the Delhi High Court set aside the Family Court’s order and held that the maintenance petition was maintainable, directing the Family Court to consider the claim on merits.

Aggrieved, the appellants approached the Supreme Court, contending that only a widow of a pre-deceased son could be treated as a dependant under Section 21(vii) of the Act.

Court’s Observation

The Supreme Court examined the scheme of Chapter III of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, which deals with maintenance of dependants, and analysed Sections 21, 22 and 23 of the Act.

The Court noted that Section 21(vii) defines “dependants” to include “any widow of his son” subject to the condition that she is unable to obtain maintenance from her husband’s estate, or from her children or their estates. It observed that the statutory language is unambiguous, and does not restrict the expression to a widow of a pre-deceased son alone.

The Bench held that the legislature had consciously used the words “any widow of his son” and had deliberately avoided the use of the expression “widow of a pre-deceased son”. According to the Court, the time at which the woman becomes a widow is immaterial for Section 21(vii).

Emphasising the principle of literal interpretation, the Court held that where the statutory language is clear, courts are bound to give effect to its plain meaning and cannot add words or impose limitations not contemplated by the legislature. The Court relied on settled precedents reiterating that courts cannot rewrite statutory provisions under the guise of interpretation.

The Court further observed that Section 22 of the Act casts an obligation on all heirs of the deceased Hindu to maintain the dependents from the estate inherited by them, and that a dependant who has not obtained a share in the estate is entitled to maintenance from those who have succeeded to it.

The Bench rejected the argument that only widows whose husbands died before the father-in-law could claim maintenance, holding that such an interpretation would be arbitrary and would create an unreasonable classification based solely on the timing of the husband’s death. The Court held that such a distinction would have no rational nexus with the object of the Act and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

The Court also noted that denying maintenance to a widowed daughter-in-law on such a narrow construction would expose her to destitution and would be inconsistent with the right to live with dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Clarifying the interplay between Sections 19 and 22 of the Act, the Court observed that while Section 19 deals with the maintenance of a widowed daughter-in-law during the lifetime of the father-in-law, Section 22 governs the right of dependants, including widowed daughters-in-law, to claim maintenance from the estate after his death.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court, accordingly, concluded that “any widow of the son of a deceased Hindu is a dependant within the meaning of Section 21 (vii) of the Act and is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 22 of the Act.”

Finding no illegality in the judgment of the Delhi High Court, the Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the direction to the Family Court to consider the maintenance claim on merits. No order as to costs was passed.

Cause Title: Kanchana Rai v. Geeta Sharma & Ors. Connected With Uma Devi v. Geeta Sharma & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 54)

Appearances

Appellants: Senior Advocates Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, V. Giri, Arvind Nayyar, with Advocates B. Shravanth Shanker, AOR, and Rahul Narang

Respondents: Vikas Singh, Senior Advocate, with Advocates Varun Singh, Nitin Saluja, AOR, Deepeika Kalia, Alankriti Dwivedi, Somesa Gupta, Sudeep Chandra, and Khushi

Click here to read/download Judgment