The Supreme Court has ruled that a widowed daughter-in-law qualifies as a dependant under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. This recognition allows her to legally seek maintenance from the estate left behind by her deceased father-in-law.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India ruled that a daughter-in-law who becomes a widow following her father-in-law’s death qualifies as a dependant under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act of 1956.
This entitles her to claim maintenance from the estate of her deceased father-in-law.
The Division Bench, comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti, upheld the High Court’s ruling, which had determined that a maintenance petition filed by such a daughter-in-law was valid.
ALSO READ: Woman’s Gotra Changes When She Marries: Supreme Court On Widow’s Property Rights
The case originated from the estate of the late Dr. Mahendra Prasad, who passed away on December 27, 2021. He had three sons:
- Ranjit Sharma, who died on March 2, 2023 (after his father’s death).
- Devinder Rai, who predeceased his father; his wife, Kanchana Rai, is the appellant.
- Rajeev Sharma.
Kanchana Rai claimed that Dr. Prasad executed a registered Will on July 18, 2011, naming her as the executor and bequeathing properties to her sons. Geeta Sharma (Respondent No. 1), the wife of Ranjit Sharma, sought maintenance from her late father-in-law’s estate in the Family Court.
However, her petition was dismissed on the grounds that she was not a widow at the time of Dr. Prasad’s death since her husband was still alive.
Dissatisfied with this outcome, Geeta Sharma appealed to the High Court, which set-aside the Family Court’s decision on August 20, 2025, concluding that she qualified as a dependant as the widow of a son.
Kanchana Rai and Uma Devi, who claimed to be a partner of the deceased, subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court against this ruling.
The central question before the Supreme Court was,
“Whether a daughter-in-law who becomes a widow after the death of her father-in-law is a dependant upon the estate of the father-in-law and entitled to claim maintenance from his estate.”
The appellants argued that the respondent had no legal basis to seek maintenance, as she was not a widow at the time of her father-in-law’s death.
The discussion revolved around the interpretation of Section 21 of the Act, wherein the appellants proposed a limited reading that would only include the widow of a son who had already predeceased the father-in-law.
The Supreme Court addressed the issue by strictly interpreting the statutory provisions, independent of the Hindu Succession Act.
- Interpretation of “Dependant”
The Court examined Section 21(vii) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, which defines dependants to include “any widow of his son or of a son of his predeceased son, so long as she does not remarry.” Rejecting the appellants’ restrictive interpretation, Justice Pankaj Mithal stated:
“The aforesaid definition nowhere uses the word ‘widow of a predeceased son’. It simply uses the words ‘any widow of a son’. The legislature in its wisdom has deliberately avoided to use the word ‘predeceased’ before the ‘son’ so as to include any widow of the son. The time of her becoming a widow or the death of the son is immaterial.” - The Literal Rule of Interpretation
The Court cited precedents such as Crawford v. Spooner and B. Premanand v. Mohan Koikal, reiterating that when the statutory language is clear, courts cannot add or omit words. The Court commented:
“The courts cannot add or subtract any word from the text of the statute. The provisions of the statute cannot be re-written by the courts by assuming or inferring something which is not implicit from the plain language of the statute.” - Constitutional Validity (Article 14 & 21)
The Bench concluded that differentiating between widowed daughters-in-law based on the timing of their husbands’ deaths would be arbitrary and violate Article 14 of the Constitution. They noted:
“The classification sought to be made between widowed daughters-in-law based solely on the timing of the husband’s death… is manifestly unreasonable and arbitrary. Such a classification bears no rational nexus with the object and purpose of the Act.”
Additionally, the Court emphasized that denying maintenance on a narrow interpretation would infringe upon Article 21 (Right to Life and Dignity):
“Denying maintenance to a widowed daughter-in-law from the estate of her deceased father-in-law on a narrow or technical construction of the statute would expose her to destitution and social marginalization, thereby offending her fundamental right to live with dignity.” - Reference to Ancient Hindu Law
The Court referenced Manu Smriti (Chapter 8, verse 389) to highlight the obligation to maintain female family members:
“No mother, no father, no wife, and no son deserves to be forsaken.” This verse underscores the duty of the head of the family to support female relatives. - Distinction Between Section 19 and Section 22
The Court differentiated between Section 19 and Section 22 of the Act:- Section 19: Imposes an obligation on the father-in-law to maintain the daughter-in-law during his lifetime.
- Section 22: Addresses the maintenance of dependants from the estate of the deceased.
The Court stated:
“Section 22 contemplates ‘maintenance of dependants’ including ‘widowed daughter-in-law’ from the estate of her father-in-law meaning thereby that a claim under Section 22 can be raised only after the death of the father-in-law.”
The Supreme Court determined that Respondent No. 1, as a “widow of the son” of the deceased, fits within the definition of a dependant under Section 21(vii) and is entitled to maintenance under Section 22.
The Court concluded,
“We are clearly of the opinion 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.”
Consequently, the appeals by Kanchana Rai and Uma Devi were dismissed, and the High Court’s direction to the Family Court to consider the maintenance claim on its merits was upheld.’
Case Title: Kanchana Rai vs. Geeta Sharma & Ors. (Connected with Uma Devi vs. Geeta Sharma & Ors.
Read Attachment