Does an 84-year-old father-in-law’s age end his duty to pay maintenance for a widowed daughter-in-law and her two minor sons? The Jharkhand High Court has said it does not, calling the responsibility “pious” and legal under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act.
Ranchi: Rs 17,000 a month will stay payable by a father-in-law to his son’s widow and their two minor children, the Jharkhand High Court has ruled, dismissing his appeal against a Dhanbad Family Court order and holding that the dependants were entitled to maintenance and that the amount was not unreasonable given his pension and rental income [Roshan Lal Saw v. Nilam Kumari & Ors.].
A Division Bench of Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Manoj Prasad delivered the judgment on November 3, 2026. Justice Manoj Prasad wrote it.
Age is not an answer
Reading Sections 19 to 22 together, the Bench said they create a duty on a Hindu to maintain a widowed daughter-in-law who has no independent means, and that the duty extends to the minor sons of a predeceased son. It relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kanchan Rai v. Geeta Sharma & Ors. (2026 INSC 54), which held that “any widow of his son” in Section 21(vii) cannot be read narrowly.
Rejecting the age-based defence, the Court said:
“Be that as it may, the fact remains that the pious responsibility of maintaining the widowed daughter-in-law and the grandchildren does not get exonerated on account of the age of the present appellant.”
It noted that a shop lease in the name of the appellant’s wife, executed in July 2017 at Rs 17,000 a month with a 10 per cent rise every five years, put the rent at Rs 18,700. With the admitted pension, the family’s cumulative income exceeded Rs 50,000 a month, and the Family Court’s award was “not unreasonable”.
How the dispute reached the High Court
The woman’s husband, the appellant’s only son, died of an illness in Hyderabad on October 27, 2020. She and her two sons moved the Family Court under Sections 19 and 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, saying they had no independent income, had received no share in her husband’s estate and were not being maintained. They claimed the appellant drew a pension of over Rs 32,000 a month, held Rs 80 lakh in fixed deposits and had other income, and sought Rs 75,000 a month.
The appellant admitted the pension but denied the fixed deposits. He said he and his wife were both over 80 and unwell, that his retirement benefits had gone into building a house in his village, and that he was already paying his grandsons’ school fees.
On June 11, 2024, the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad, awarded Rs 7,000 a month to the widow and Rs 5,000 a month to each child until majority, payable from September 24, 2021, with arrears to be cleared within two months.
Arrears unpaid
According to the respondents’ counter-affidavit, only Rs 1,99,000 of the Rs 8,33,000 due had been paid, leaving Rs 6,34,000 outstanding, even though the High Court had never stayed the order. The Bench directed that any unpaid arrears be cleared within a maximum of two months and dismissed the appeal without costs.
Why the judgment matters
The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act treats a son’s widow and the minor children of a predeceased son as dependants, and courts have consistently enforced that obligation against the father-in-law where the widow cannot support herself. The judgment applies the Supreme Court’s recent reading in Kanchan Rai and confirms that the duty is statutory, not merely moral.
Its practical point is that old age and illness do not cancel the obligation where the elder has a steady income. Courts will look at the family’s actual resources, including income held in a spouse’s name, and will expect arrears to be paid when no stay has been granted.
Case Title: Roshan Lal Saw v. Nilam Kumari & Ors.
Case No.: F.A. No. 229 of 2024; Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:32181-DB
Bench: Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Manoj Prasad, Jharkhand High Court
Date of Judgment: November 3, 2026 (reserved on October 6, 2026)
Appearances: Mahesh Tewari for the appellant; Rakesh Kumar Gupta for the respondents