Right of a widowed daughter-in-law to claim maintenance from her father-in-law

 Under Hindu law, the right of a widowed daughter-in-law to claim maintenance from her father-in-law is a contingent and limited right. It is not an absolute or primary obligation like that of a husband toward his wife.

The primary governing provision is Section 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (HAMA), 1956.

Conditions for Claiming Maintenance

A widowed daughter-in-law can only claim maintenance if she fulfills the following strict criteria:

• Inability to Maintain Herself: She must show that she is unable to maintain herself out of her own earnings or other property.

• Exhaustion of Other Sources: If she has no property of her own, she must demonstrate that she is unable to obtain maintenance from:

  1. The estate of her deceased husband; or

  2. Her father or mother; or

  3. Her son or daughter (or their estate).

• Possession of Coparcenary Property: The father-in-law is only liable if he has "means to do so from any coparcenary property in his possession" in which the daughter-in-law has not obtained a share. He is not legally bound to maintain her from his self-acquired or separate property.

Termination of the Right

The obligation of the father-in-law ceases immediately if:

1. The widow remarries.

2. She ceases to be a Hindu (converts to another religion).

Case References

The courts have consistently emphasized that this is a "remote" obligation that only arises when all other avenues of support are closed.

A. Master Lal v. Smt. Premlata Sahu (Mithai Lal Ram Bihari Sahu v. Premlata Sahu)

In this case, the court held that the quantum of maintenance depends on the income the father-in-law derives from the coparcenary property, specifically to the extent of the deceased husband's share. If there is no such ancestral property, the claim cannot be enforced.

B. Kalyan Sah v. Mosmat Rashmi Priya (2023, Patna High Court)

The Patna High Court reaffirmed that a father-in-law has no obligation to maintain his daughter-in-law except from ancestral property in his possession. The court also clarified that a daughter-in-law cannot claim maintenance under the secular Section 125 of the CrPC (now Section 144 BNSS); her remedy lies strictly within Section 19 of HAMA.

C. Dhanna Sahu v. Sitabai Sahu (2023, Chhattisgarh High Court)

In this case, the maintenance order was set aside because the daughter-in-law had previously deposed in a child custody case that she was earning enough and her parents had sufficient property. The court ruled that since she was able to maintain herself, the mandatory requirements of Section 19 were not met.

D. S.V. Parthasarathy Bhattachariar v. S. Rajeswari

The Madras High Court observed that a father-in-law is liable to pay maintenance if the husband has been missing for more than seven years (presumed dead), provided the statutory conditions of Section 19 are satisfied.