Patna High Court ruled that a father-in-law is not automatically liable for a widowed daughter-in-law’s maintenance under HAMA unless he has income from coparcenary property. The Court set aside the Sessions Court’s order, emphasizing that such liability is conditional and not absolute.
Patna: The Patna High Court ruled that a father-in-law is not automatically required to provide maintenance to his widowed daughter-in-law under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (HAMA).
The court stated that such liability arises only if the father-in-law has sufficient income from coparcenary property. The case originated from a Criminal Revision petition filed by a widowed woman seeking financial support from her late husband’s family.
Background
The case began when a Magistrate directed that the widow should receive maintenance from her husband’s family, including her in-laws and other relatives. However, when the matter reached the Sessions Court, the order was modified. The Sessions Court ruled that the father-in-law and mother-in-law must provide her with a monthly maintenance of Rs. 5,000.
Dissatisfied with this decision, the father-in-law and other relatives challenged the order in the Patna High Court. They argued that the Sessions Court had wrongly imposed a financial burden on both the father-in-law and mother-in-law. The father-in-law, a pensioner with limited income, contended that he did not have coparcenary property from which maintenance could be granted.
A Bench led by Justice Jitendra Kumar examined the matter and clarified the conditions under which a father-in-law may be held responsible for maintaining his widowed daughter-in-law.
The Court stated, “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.”
The father-in-law, being a pensioner, argued that he had no additional sources of income to support his widowed daughter-in-law.
The Court took note of this and reaffirmed 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 High Court emphasized that under Section 19 of HAMA, a father-in-law’s duty to provide financial support is not absolute and depends on certain legal conditions.
The Court ruled, “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 further explained, “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.”
After reviewing the case, the High Court set aside the Sessions Court’s order, which had imposed maintenance obligations on the father-in-law and mother-in-law. However, the Court ensured that the widow’s right to residence was protected, ruling that she could continue living in the joint family home. The Court also remanded the case back to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) for reconsideration of her maintenance claim based on proper legal and factual analysis.
Case Title: Company Ram & Ors. v. The State of Bihar & Anr.
