Quoting Manusmiriti, the Supreme Court has held that a widowed daughter-in-law is entitled to claim maintenance from her father-in-law’s estate even if she became a widow after his death.While deciding the case, a Bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and SVN Bhatti quoted Manusmriti to underline the moral duty of a family to support women members.
Quoting chapter 8, verse 389 of Manusmriti, the Court noted,“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. This verse emphasizes duty of the family head to support female family members.”
The dispute arose in a family after the death of one Mahendra Prasad in December 2021. He had three sons - Ranjit Sharma, Devinder Rai and Rajeev Sharma. Ranjit Sharma died in March 2023 after his father. His widow, Geeta Sharma, later approached family court seeking maintenance from her father-in-law’s estate.
She filed the case under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (HAMA), saying she was a “dependant” and could not maintain herself from her husband Ranjit Sharma’s property or any other source.The family court rejected her case. It said that she was not a widow on the date her father-in-law died, since her husband was alive at that time. On that basis, it held that she was not a “dependant” of the deceased father-in-law.
She challenged this order before the High Court. The High Court reversed the family court’s decision. It held that what matters is whether she is now a widow of the deceased man’s son, not the exact date on which she became a widow. The High Court said her petition was maintainable and sent the case back to the family court to decide the quantum of maintenance.
Two appeals were then filed before the Supreme Court. One was by Kanchana Rai, the wife of Devinder Rai (another son of Mahendra Prasad), who said the maintenance case itself was not maintainable. The second appeal was by Uma Devi, a woman who claimed to be in a long live-in relationship with Mahendra Prasad and said Geeta had no right to seek maintenance from his estate.
Upon examining the appeals, the Court said the real issue was whether a daughter-in-law who becomes a widow after her father-in-law’s death can still be treated as a “dependant” and claim maintenance from his estate.
The Court explained that Chapter III of the HAMA deals with maintenance. Section 21 defines who all are “dependants.” One of the categories mentioned is “any widow of his son,” subject to certain conditions.
The bench opined that this wording does not say “widow of a predeceased son.” It simply says “any widow of his son.” So the timing of when the woman became a widow does not matter.
The Court then explained that when the language of a law is clear, courts must follow it as it is written. They cannot add words or change its meaning just because they feel it would be fairer or more logical.
While explaining this, the Court relied on earlier judgments which say that judges cannot “repair” a law by inserting missing words.
The Court then said that even otherwise, denying maintenance only because a woman became a widow after her father-in-law’s death would be unfair and unconstitutional.
The judges explained that such a distinction would treat two widows differently based only on the timing of their husband’s death, which is something completely beyond their control. Both face the same problem - loss of spousal support and financial vulnerability.
Follow us
