Supreme Court quotes Manusmriti; says widowed daughter-in-law can seek maintenance from father-in-law’s estate

The Supreme Court recently held that a widowed daughter-in-law is entitled to claim maintenance from her father-in-law’s estate even if she became a widow after his death [Kanchana Rai vs. Geeta Sharma & Ors.].

While deciding the case, a Bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and SVN Bhatti quoted Manusmriti to underline the moral duty of a family to support women members.

Quoting chapter 8, verse 389 of Manusmriti, the Court noted,

“No mother, no father, no wife, and no son deserves to be forsaken. A person who abandons these blameless (relatives) should be fined six hundred (units) by the king. This verse emphasizes duty of the family head to support female family members.”

The Court said that even today, the idea behind maintenance law is the same - those who inherit property must take care of those who were dependent on the deceased.

The dispute arose in a family after the death of one Mahendra Prasad in December 2021. He had three sons - Ranjit Sharma, Devinder Rai and Rajeev Sharma. Ranjit Sharma died in March 2023 after his father. His widow, Geeta Sharma, later approached family court seeking maintenance from her father-in-law’s estate.

She filed the case under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (HAMA), saying she was a “dependant” and could not maintain herself from her husband Ranjit Sharma’s property or any other source.

The family court rejected her case. It said that she was not a widow on the date her father-in-law died, since her husband was alive at that time. On that basis, it held that she was not a “dependant” of the deceased father-in-law.

She challenged this order before the High Court. The High Court reversed the family court’s decision. It held that what matters is whether she is now a widow of the deceased man’s son, not the exact date on which she became a widow. The High Court said her petition was maintainable and sent the case back to the family court to decide the quantum of maintenance.

Two appeals were then filed before the Supreme Court. One was by Kanchana Rai, the wife of Devinder Rai (another son of Mahendra Prasad), who said the maintenance case itself was not maintainable. The second appeal was by Uma Devi, a woman who claimed to be in a long live-in relationship with Mahendra Prasad and said Geeta had no right to seek maintenance from his estate.

Upon examining the appeals, the Court said the real issue was whether a daughter-in-law who becomes a widow after her father-in-law’s death can still be treated as a “dependant” and claim maintenance from his estate.

The Court explained that Chapter III of the HAMA deals with maintenance. Section 21 defines who all are “dependants.” One of the categories mentioned is “any widow of his son,” subject to certain conditions.

The bench opined that this wording does not say “widow of a predeceased son.” It simply says “any widow of his son.” So the timing of when the woman became a widow does not matter.

The Court then explained that when the language of a law is clear, courts must follow it as it is written. They cannot add words or change its meaning just because they feel it would be fairer or more logical.

While explaining this, the Court relied on earlier judgments which say that judges cannot “repair” a law by inserting missing words.

The Court then said that even otherwise, denying maintenance only because a woman became a widow after her father-in-law’s death would be unfair and unconstitutional.

The judges explained that such a distinction would treat two widows differently based only on the timing of their husband’s death, which is something completely beyond their control. Both face the same problem - loss of spousal support and financial vulnerability.

The Court said such a classification would be arbitrary and would violate Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before law. It also said that denying maintenance in such cases could violate Article 21 because it could push a woman into poverty and loss of dignity.

After dealing with the statute and the Constitution, the Court also referred to traditional Hindu law to support the moral basis of maintenance.

The judges explained that although the HAMA overrides old Hindu law, ancient principles can still help in understanding social duties. They referred to verse 389 of chapter 8 from the Manusmriti which speaks about the duty to not abandon close family members.

Further, the Court said that under Section 22 of the HAMA, all heirs who inherit the estate are bound to maintain the dependants out of that estate. If a dependant does not get any share in the property, she can still seek maintenance from those who did.

The Court also clarified the difference between Section 19 and Section 22 of the HAMA. It said that Section 19 deals with maintenance of a widowed daughter-in-law during the lifetime of the father-in-law. Section 22 deals with maintenance from his estate after his death.

So, a woman can claim maintenance from her father-in-law while he is alive under Section 19, and from his estate after his death under Section 22, if she falls within the category of “dependants.”

The Court finally held that the words “any widow of his son” clearly include even a woman who becomes a widow after her father-in-law’s death.

Therefore, it dismissed both appeals and upheld the High Court order holding Geeta's maintenance case to be maintainable.

The petitioners were represented by Senior Advocates V Giri, Arvind Nayyar and Abhishek Manu Singhvi along with advocates B Shravanth Shanker, Rahul Narang and D Abhinav Rao.

The respondents were represented by Senior Advocate Vikas Singh along with advocates Varun Singh, Nitin Saluja, Deepeika Kalia, Alankriti Dwivedi, Somesa Gupta, Sudeep Chandra and Khushi.

[Read Judgment]