Case at a Glance
After his only son died in 2020, an 83-year-old retired man was ordered by the Family Court, Dhanbad to pay his son’s widow ₹7,000 a month and each of his two grandsons ₹5,000 a month under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. He argued that maintenance cannot be ordered from his pension and that his age and his wife’s needs should exempt him. A Division Bench, relying on Kanchan Rai v. Geeta Sharma, (2026) 01 SC CK 1867, held that his age does not exonerate him, assessed his income from pension and rent at over ₹50,000 a month, and dismissed the appeal, directing unpaid arrears to be cleared within two months.
Suraj Kumar, the appellant’s only son, died on 27 October 2020 in Hyderabad. His widow, Nilam Kumari, who married him on 6 December 2010, and their two minor sons applied under Sections 19 and 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA), claiming ₹75,000 a month. She said she had no livelihood and had received no share in the estate, and alleged that the appellant drew about ₹32,000 a month as pension and had substantial fixed deposits and other income.
The appellant admitted the pension but denied the deposits, saying his retirement benefits went into building a house in his village and that his wife, over 80, depends on him. On 11 June 2024 the Family Court, Dhanbad awarded ₹7,000 a month to the widow and ₹5,000 a month to each son until majority, from 24 September 2021. In appeal, the record included a shop lease in the name of the appellant’s wife at ₹17,000 a month, enhanced to ₹18,700 from 2022, and a counter-affidavit showing that ₹6,34,000 of arrears remained unpaid.
The Key Question Before the Court
Is an elderly father-in-law living on his pension bound to maintain his deceased son’s widow and children under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act?
Age Is No Exemption From a Statutory Duty
The Court read Section 19 of HAMA (maintenance of a widowed daughter-in-law by her father-in-law) together with Section 20 (children and aged parents), Section 21 (dependants, including a son’s widow who has not remarried) and Section 22. It relied on the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Kanchan Rai v. Geeta Sharma, which rejected a narrow reading of “any widow of his son”: “The courts cannot add or subtract any word from the text of the statute.” It quoted that “Denial of maintenance to one category based on a fortuitous circumstance beyond their control is manifestly arbitrary” and that “The right to life has been judicially expanded to include the right to livelihood and basic sustenance.”
Applying the law, the Bench held that the appellant “does not get exonerated on account of the age of the present appellant.” Taking his admitted pension of over ₹32,000 and rent of over ₹18,000, it assessed his cumulative income at more than ₹50,000 a month and found the Family Court’s total award of ₹17,000 a month not unreasonable. Because the arrears had not been paid and no stay had been granted, it directed payment within two months.
What the Court Actually Held
- Under Section 19 of HAMA, a father-in-law is bound to maintain his son’s widow, and grandchildren are also entitled to maintenance under the Act.
- Old age does not exempt the father-in-law from this duty; his pension and rental income can be considered in fixing maintenance.
- On an assessed income of over ₹50,000 a month, the Family Court’s award of ₹7,000 to the widow and ₹5,000 to each grandson was not unreasonable.
- The appeal was dismissed without costs, and unpaid arrears must be paid within two months.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It confirms that widows can enforce maintenance against their father-in-law under HAMA, following the Supreme Court in Kanchan Rai.
- It rejects the argument that pension income is off-limits for maintenance.
- It sets a clear two-month deadline for arrears, which matters to families awaiting payment for years.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Widows and Families
- A widowed daughter-in-law who has not remarried and lacks means can claim maintenance from her father-in-law under Section 19 of HAMA.
- Children can also claim maintenance from their grandfather in such proceedings.
- Evidence of pension, rent and other income in the family helps fix a fair amount.
For Counsel
- Rely on Kanchan Rai v. Geeta Sharma for the wide reading of “any widow of his son”.
- For elderly respondents, file proper proof of expenses and the spouse’s needs; bare claims of age and illness did not succeed here.
- Track arrears and seek a time-bound direction where no stay has been granted.
Key Takeaways
- Father-in-law liable to maintain son’s widow under Section 19 HAMA.
- Age does not exempt him from the duty.
- Pension and rent counted as income.
- ₹17,000 a month upheld; arrears to be paid in two months.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can maintenance be paid from a father-in-law’s pension?
Yes. The Court counted his admitted pension of over ₹32,000 a month, along with rent, in assessing his income and upheld the award.
Does the widow lose this right if she remarries?
The Court noted that Section 21 of HAMA treats a son’s widow as a dependant so long as she does not remarry.
How much was awarded?
₹7,000 a month to the widow and ₹5,000 a month to each of the two grandsons until majority, payable from 24 September 2021.
Conclusion
The Jharkhand High Court has applied Kanchan Rai with a practical eye: a father-in-law with steady pension and rental income must share it with his son’s widow and children, whatever his age.
Practical takeaway: Widows without means should consider a HAMA claim against the father-in-law; respondents must prove genuine incapacity, not just old age, to resist it.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com