HAMA | Father-In-Law's Liability To Maintain Widowed Daughter-In-Law Dependent On Income From Co-Parcenary Property: Patna High Court
The Patna High Court has held that under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (HAMA) a father-in-law is not automatically liable to pay maintenance to his widowed daughter-in-law unless he has sufficient income from the co-parcenary property.Justice Jitendra Kumar, presiding over the case, emphasized, “Section 19 clearly shows that liability of father-in-law to maintain his...
The Patna High Court has held that under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (HAMA) a father-in-law is not automatically liable to pay maintenance to his widowed daughter-in-law unless he has sufficient income from the co-parcenary property.
Justice Jitendra Kumar, presiding over the case, emphasized, “Section 19 clearly shows that liability of father-in-law to maintain his daughter-in-law is dependent upon income from the co-parcenary property, if any. But learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no such coparcenary property. There is only one residential house for the joint family where the complainant is free to live. He also submits that the father-in-law is just a pensioner and has no additional means to maintain her daughter-in-law. Moreover, mother-in-law has no liability to maintain her daughter-in-law. Hence, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law.”
The court noted that Section 19(2) of the Act provides that the obligation of father-in-law under Section 19(1) is not enforceable if he does not have the "means to do so from any co-parcenary property in his possession" out of which the daughter-in-law has not obtained any share and any such obligation shall cease on the re-marriage of the daughter-in-law.
Section 19(1) states that a widowed daughter-in-law is entitled to get maintenance from her father-in-law if she can't maintain herself out of her own earnings or other property; if she has no property of her own; if she is unable to obtain maintenance from the estate of her husband or her father or mother or from her son or daughter, if any, or his or her estate.
The above ruling came in a Criminal Revision petition, arising from a challenge to an order passed by the Sessions Court in a Criminal Appeal which had directed both the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant to pay her maintenance of Rs. 5,000 per month.
The complainant, Puja Kumari, had initially sought a protection order, residence order, and maintenance from her husband, parents-in-law, and other relatives. The magistrate in 2017, directed all the respondents to provide her residence and maintenance and granted her a protection order. This order was subsequently challenged before the Sessions Court in a Criminal Appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, the complainant's husband passed away, following which the Sessions Court modified the order and directed that only the complainant's father-in-law and mother-in-law will pay her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5,000 per month.
The petitioners, who included the complainant's father-in-law and other relatives, challenged this order before the High Court. They contended that the Sessions Court erred in imposing a maintenance obligation on both the father-in-law and mother-in-law, arguing that under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, only the father-in-law may be liable, and that too only if he possesses sufficient coparcenary property.
The petitioners further argued that in this case, the father-in-law did not possess any coparcenary property apart from a joint residential house. Additionally, they contended that the father-in-law was a pensioner with limited means and could not afford to pay maintenance. The petitioners also submitted that at the time the initial order was passed by the magistrate, the complainant's husband was alive, and hence no liability for maintenance should have been imposed on the in-laws at that stage.
The complainant, on the other hand, argued that she had no independent means to maintain herself and that she was entitled to maintenance from her father-in-law. She contended that the family property had not been partitioned and that there were additional joint family assets, thereby justifying her claim for maintenance.
The High Court agreed with the petitioners, ruling that the Sessions Court had misapplied the law by directing both the father-in-law and mother-in-law to pay maintenance.
The Court observed, “I find that learned A.C.J.M, without discussing the law and the facts, has passed the maintenance order against all the respondents including the husband, both parents-in-law and other relatives. Such order could not be sustainable in the eye of law. Only husband could have been directed to pay maintenance, at the most, subject to fulfillment of legal requirements.”
Regarding the father-in-law's liability, the court further clarified, “Even liability of the father-in-law is not absolute. Certain conditions as stipulated under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, are required to be fulfilled before fastening such liability on the father-in-law. But, learned Sessions Court has not discussed such relevant law and facts before passing the impugned order.”
Consequently, the High Court set aside the maintenance order and remanded the matter to the ACJM, Munger, for reconsideration based on evidence regarding the widow's entitlement to maintenance. However, the protection and residence orders in favour of the complainant were left undisturbed, ensuring her right to reside in the joint family home.
Case Title: Company Ram @ Tiran Ram and ors vs The State of Bihar and Anr
LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 11
