Not Mandatory For Widowed Daughter-In-Law To Live In Matrimonial Home To Claim Maintenance From Father-In-Law: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has observed that agreeing to live in a matrimonial home is not a condition precedent for a widowed daughter-in-law to seek maintenance from her father-in-law. It was observed that a widowed woman choosing to live with her parents will not lead to the conclusion that she separated from her matrimonial home.

The bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh observed

“it is not a mandatory condition of law that for a daughter-in-law to claim maintenance, she must first agree to live at her matrimonial home. In the societal context in which law must be applied, it is not uncommon for widowed ladies to live with her parents, for varied reasons and circumstances. Merely because the lady may have made that choice may neither lead us to the conclusion that she had separated from her matrimonial home without reasonable cause nor that she would have sufficient means to survive of her own.”

Respondent's husband/ Appellant's son was murdered in 1999. Thereafter, she remained unmarried. In her suit for maintenance before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Agra, she pleaded that she had only received Rs. 80,000 as terminal dues from her husband's employer. She also claimed her entitlement to the father-in-law's property which her husband was entitled to.

The appellant, on the other hand, claimed that the respondent was gainfully employed and that he had made a deposit of Rs. 20000 in her account. Further, it was stated that he had not received any part from the terminal dues. Disbelieving the claims that the respondent had remarried and was gainfully employed, the Family Court granted Rs. 3,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent.

This order was challenged by the appellant- father-in-law before the High Court.

The Court observed that no documentary evidence was filed to show that the respondent had misappropriated the terminal dues, only oral averments were made. Though there was evidence of a fixed deposit of Rs. 20000 created by the appellant in favour of the respondent, however, the Court observed that there was no proof regarding the misappropriation of terminal dues.

Further, the Court observed that the factum of remarriage and gainful employment as claimed by the appellant was never proved by him by leading any evidence in support of his claim.

Accordingly, the Court held that the respondent was entitled to maintenance from her father-in-law, as living separately from the in-laws, with her parents does not disentitle her from claiming maintenance.

Case Title: Shree Rajpati v. Smt. Bhuri Devi [FIRST APPEAL No. - 696 of 2013]

Click Here To Read/Download Order