Father-In-Law's Maintenance Liability Under HAMA Dependent On Co-Parcenary Property Income: Patna High Court
It was argued that the father-in-law’s liability was dependent on his possession of coparcenary property.
The Patna High Court ruled that under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (HAMA), a father-in-law is not automatically liable to pay maintenance to his widowed daughter-in-law unless he has sufficient income from coparcenary property.
The case stemmed from a Criminal Revision petition, where the complainant sought maintenance from her husband’s family after his death. Initially, a magistrate’s order directed that she be provided with maintenance by her husband, in-laws, and other relatives. Later, the Sessions Court modified this order, directing her father-in-law and mother-in-law to pay her a monthly maintenance of Rs. 5,000.
The petitioners including father-in-law and other relatives, challenged this decision in the High Court. They argued that the Sessions Court had wrongly imposed maintenance obligations on both the father-in-law and mother-in-law, and that the father-in-law’s liability was dependent on his possession of coparcenary property. Additionally, they contended that the father-in-law, being a pensioner with limited resources, could not afford to pay the maintenance.
A Bench of Justice Jitendra Kumar said, “Section 19 clearly shows that liability of father-in-law to maintain his daughter-in-law is dependent upon income from the coparcenary property, if any. But learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no such coparcenary property. There is only one residential house for the joint family where the complainant is free to live. He also submits that the father-in-law is just a pensioner and has no additional means to maintain her daughter-in-law. Moreover, mother-in-law has no liability to maintain her daughter-in-law. Hence, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law.”
The Court noted that the liability of a father-in-law to maintain his widowed daughter-in-law is contingent upon having income from co-parcenary property. The Court emphasized that the petitioner’s father-in-law, being a pensioner with no other means of income, could not be expected to provide maintenance.
The High Court sided with the petitioners, ruling that, “I find that learned A.C.J.M, without discussing the law and the facts, has passed the maintenance order against all the respondents including the husband, both parents-in-law and other relatives. Such order could not be sustainable in the eye of law. Only husband could have been directed to pay maintenance, at the most, subject to fulfillment of legal requirements.”
The Court clarified that only the husband, and in specific cases, the father-in-law, could be liable for maintenance under Section 19 of the HAMA. The Court added, “Even liability of the father-in-law is not absolute. Certain conditions as stipulated under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, are required to be fulfilled before fastening such liability on the father-in-law. But, learned Sessions Court has not discussed such relevant law and facts before passing the impugned order.”
As a result, the High Court set aside the maintenance order and remanded the case back to the ACJM, for a reconsideration of the widow’s entitlement to maintenance based on the available evidence. However, the Court upheld the protection and residence orders in favor of the complainant, allowing her to continue residing in the joint family home.
Cause Title: Company Ram & Ors. v. The State of Bihar & Anr.
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates Shashi Saurabh, Puja Kumari
Respondents: Advocates Mohammed Arif, Rahul Kumar Mishra
