Father-in-law must support widowed daughter-in-law despite age, rules Jharkhand HC
text_fields
Ranchi: The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that an elderly father-in-law cannot escape his obligation to support his widowed daughter-in-law and grandchildren merely because of his age or health problems. The court upheld a family court order directing him to pay Rs 17,000 a month for their maintenance.
A division bench of Chief Justice M S Sonak and Justice Manoj Prasad passed the order on November 3 while hearing an appeal filed by the 83-year-old man against the maintenance direction. The court said that under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, he had both a legal duty and a moral responsibility to look after his son’s widow and her dependent children.
The woman’s husband died in 2020 after an illness. Left to raise two sons without any independent income, she approached the family court seeking financial support from her father-in-law. The couple had married in 2010.
In her petition, the woman alleged that her father-in-law, despite having adequate means, refused to maintain her and the children. She said she had received no share of her late husband’s estate and that the lack of support was affecting her sons’ education. She also said efforts to resolve the dispute through a panchayat had failed.
The woman claimed that her father-in-law received a monthly pension of about Rs 32,000, held fixed deposits exceeding Rs 80 lakh and had other sources of income. She sought Rs 75,000 a month for herself and her two sons.
The man opposed the plea, saying his pension was his only income and that he had to support his wife as well as meet his own medical and household expenses. He denied possessing fixed deposits worth Rs 80 lakh, saying his retirement benefits had been used to build a house. He also alleged that after his son’s death, the daughter-in-law had mistreated him and his wife and stopped caring for them.
The high court, however, held that the Act clearly includes a widowed daughter-in-law and the minor children of a predeceased son among those entitled to maintenance. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the bench said the statutory provisions must be read according to their plain meaning and cannot be narrowed by adding or removing words.
The court observed that the man’s advanced age and age-related illnesses did not release him from the responsibility of maintaining his widowed daughter-in-law and grandchildren. It noted that he received a pension of over Rs 32,000 a month, while a shop leased in his wife’s name generated rent of more than Rs 18,000 a month. Their combined monthly income exceeded Rs 50,000, the court said, establishing his capacity to pay maintenance.