Divorced daughter can't claim maintenance under Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court recently ruled that a divorced daughter cannot claim maintenance from her mother or brother under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act (HAMA). [Malini Chaudhri v. Ranjit Chaudhri & Anr].The division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Sharma observed that while there were 9 categories of dependents under Section 21 of the HAMA, a divorced daughter is not one among these categories. “An unmarried or widowed daughter is recognized to have a claim in the estate of the deceased, but a “divorced daughter” does not feature in the category of dependents entitled to maintenance,” the Court added, in its order. .The Court further noted that a divorced woman can claim maintenance from her husband even after the divorce. In this case, the woman claimed that she could not trace her husband. However, the Court responded by pointing out that it still could not order her mother and brother to pay her maintenance."However difficult situation as it may be, but under the HAMA as she is not a “dependent” as defined under the Act and thus not entitled to claim maintenance from her mother and brother," the Court said. .The Court was hearing a woman’s plea challenging a trial court’s rejection of her petition under Section 22 (dealing with maintenance of dependents) of the HAMA. The woman had been married to a man in 1995, but the husband later deserted her and went to the United States of America. She was granted an ex parte divorce in 2001.The woman told the High Court that she was being paid ₹ 45,000 per month as maintenance by her maternal family till November 2014, on an assurance that she would not press for her share in property bequeathed to her by her father. After these payments were stopped, she said that she was facing an extreme shortage of money..The Court noted that the woman’s father had bequeathed nine acres of land to her and her sister. They sold the same in 2001 and shared the sale proceeds, the Court was told.The Court further found that the woman's brother and mother had earlier helped her "voluntarily" by giving her ₹ 45,000 per month to her till 2014..On finding that they had no statutory obligation to maintain her, the High Court proceeded to dismiss the woman's appeal. The Court opined that the family court had rightly held that the woman was not entitled to claim any maintenance under HAMA..The appellant-woman appeared in person. Advocates Kapil Arora, Manjula Baxla, and Prashashti Bhatt represented the respondents..[Read Judgment]