Muslim Law | Father-In-Law Is Not Compelled To Maintain Deceased Son's Widow: Madhya Pradesh High Court Reiterates
The Gwalior bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has reiterated that under Muslim Law, a father-in-law is not required to provide financial support to his deceased son's widow. In doing so the high court set aside the orders of the trial court and sessions courts, which had directed the petitioner father-in-law to pay monthly maintenance to his daughter-in-law after the death of his...
The Gwalior bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has reiterated that under Muslim Law, a father-in-law is not required to provide financial support to his deceased son's widow.
In doing so the high court set aside the orders of the trial court and sessions courts, which had directed the petitioner father-in-law to pay monthly maintenance to his daughter-in-law after the death of his son.
A single judge bench of Justice Hirdesh said, "In the present case, it is not in dispute that respondent is the widow of petitioner's son and according to Mahomedan Law cited above, the father of widow's husband is not compelled to maintain her. The Calcutta High Court has specifically in the case of Shabnam Parveen (supra) observed that as per DV Act, the father-in-law of the son's widow is not bound to give maintenance to her”.
The high court referred to the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Shabnam Parveen Vs. State of West Bengal & others, which held that under Muslim Personal Law a father-in-law is under no obligation to provide maintain allowance to the widow of his son.
The high court thereafter said,“As per the provisions of Muslim law and the DV Act, in the considered opinion of this Court, the present petitioner being father-in law of respondent, cannot be compelled to give maintenance to the respondent.”
The respondent who is the widow of the petitioner's son, demanded maintenance for herself and her two children after her husband's death from the petitioner. The Respondent applied for maintenance under Section 18 to 22 of the Domestic Violence Act. The Judicial Magistrate First Class awarded her a maintenance of Rs. 3000 per month and it was upheld by the First Additional Sessions Judge as well. The petitioner father-in-law challenged these orders before the high court stating that in accordance with Muslim Personal Law, he had no financial obligation to maintain his daughter in law.
To aid his argument, the petitioner's counsel referred to Mulla Principles of Mahomedan Law, Chapter XIX Maintenance of Relatives and Maintenance of Other Relations and also cited the Bombay High Court's judgement in Mahomed Abdul Aziz Hidayat Vs. Khairunnissa Abdul Gani (1950) which upheld that a father cannot be compelled to maintain his deceased son's wife.
The high court observed that the trial court and the sessions court had committed an error in granting maintenance to the widowed daughter in law.
“In view of above discussion as well as the case laws, it is apparent that the trial Court as well as the Sessions Court has committed an error in granting maintenance in favour of respondent. Therefore, order dated 21.01.2022 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri (M.P.) in Criminal Appeal No.25/2021 and the order dated 09.02.2021 passed in MJCR No.1200291/2015 by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shivpuri are hereby set aside," it said.
Case title: Bashir Khan Versus Ishrat Bano
Case No: CRR-458-2022
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 289