Summary
A daughter-in-law whose husband died after her father-in-law is a 'dependant' under Section 21(vii) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, and may claim maintenance from his estate under Section 22. The words 'any widow of his son' are not limited to the widow of a predeceased son. A narrower reading would also offend Articles 14 and 21. The High Court's finding that her petition was maintainable was upheld.
Issues
- Whether a daughter-in-law who becomes a widow after her father-in-law's death is a dependant under Section 21(vii) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, entitled to claim maintenance from his estate under Section 22.
- Whether Section 19 of the Act limits such a claim.
Provisions considered
- Section 21(vii), Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956The definition covers 'any widow of his son' (subject to her not remarrying and being unable to get maintenance from her husband's or children's estate). The Court held the words are clear, do not say 'predeceased', and so include any son's widow regardless of when she was widowed; the courts cannot add words to restrict them. (¶¶ 10, 11, 15, 16, 22, 29)
- Section 22, Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956Read as obliging the heirs of a deceased Hindu to maintain his dependants out of the inherited estate, and, under sub-section (2), making those who take the estate liable to a dependant who received no share. Such a widowed daughter-in-law may claim under it. (¶¶ 12, 13, 28, 29)
- Section 19, Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956Explained as imposing the father-in-law's obligation to maintain a widowed daughter-in-law during his lifetime, whereas Section 22 governs maintenance from his estate after his death; Section 19 therefore did not defeat the claim. (¶¶ 27, 28)
- Section 4, Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956Noted that the overriding effect of Section 4 does not erase the underlying principles of Hindu law where a doubt arises over the codified provisions, which recognise the duty to maintain the widowed daughter-in-law. (¶¶ 25, 26)
- Articles 14 and 21, Constitution of IndiaHeld that classifying widowed daughters-in-law by whether the husband died before or after the father-in-law is arbitrary and has no nexus with the Act's object, violating Article 14; and denying maintenance on a narrow reading would expose the widow to destitution, offending the right to live with dignity under Article 21. (¶¶ 23, 24)
Held
- Section 21(vii) is clear and unambiguous: 'any widow of his son' is a dependant regardless of when she became a widow. The legislature deliberately did not use the word 'predeceased', and the courts cannot read it in. A plain provision must be given its literal meaning unless that conflicts with the Act's purpose or is impractical. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 22)
- A restrictive reading that classifies widowed daughters-in-law by whether the husband died before or after the father-in-law would be arbitrary and unrelated to the Act's object of maintaining dependants who cannot maintain themselves. It would violate Article 14, and by exposing the widow to destitution it would also offend Article 21. (¶¶ 23, 24)
- Section 19 covers the father-in-law's obligation during his lifetime, while Section 22 provides for maintenance of dependants, including a widowed daughter-in-law, from his estate after his death. (¶ 28)
- A son's widow is a dependant under Section 21(vii) and may claim maintenance under Section 22. The High Court rightly held the first respondent's petition maintainable and remitted it to the Family Court to decide on merits. (¶ 29)
Result
Appeals dismissed with no order as to costs; the High Court's order holding the maintenance petition maintainable and directing the Family Court to decide it on merits upheld.