New Delhi: The Supreme Court has held that a daughter-in-law who becomes a widow after the death of her father-in-law is entitled to claim maintenance from his estate under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, ruling that the timing of her becoming a widow is immaterial to her status as a dependant.
Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti delivered the judgment on January 13, 2026, dismissing appeals challenging the maintainability of a maintenance petition filed by a widow whose husband died after her father-in-law’s death.
The Court was hearing Civil Appeals arising from a family dispute among the heirs of late Dr. Mahendra Prasad, who died on December 27, 2021. His son, Ranjit Sharma, passed away on March 2, 2023, after his father’s death.
Smt. Geeta Sharma, the widow of Ranjit Sharma, applied for maintenance from her father-in-law’s estate before the Family Court. The Family Court dismissed the petition as not maintainable, holding that since her husband was alive at the time of Dr. Mahendra Prasad’s death, she was not a widow when her father-in-law died.
The High Court set aside the Family Court’s order, holding that the petition was maintainable as Respondent No. 1 was the widow of one of the sons of late Dr. Mahendra Prasad and, as such, was a dependant under the Act.
Smt. Kanchana Rai, wife of another pre-deceased son of Dr. Mahendra Prasad, challenged the High Court’s order. A separate appeal was filed by Smt. Uma Devi, an alleged partner of late Dr. Mahendra Prasad, contending that she was in a live-in relationship with him for over forty years.
The Supreme Court framed the issue as whether a daughter-in-law who becomes a widow after the death of her father-in-law is a dependant upon his estate and entitled to claim maintenance from it.
The Court referred to Section 21(vii) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, which defines “dependants” to include “any widow of his son or of a son of his pre-deceased son.”
The Bench stated:
“A plain reading of the above definition of the dependants makes it crystal clear that the relatives of the deceased, namely, ‘any widow of his son’, would be a dependant, provided she is unable to maintain herself from her husband’s estate or from her son’s or daughter’s estate.”
Emphasising the principle of literal interpretation, the Court observed:
“The above definition is quite clear and unambiguous. It is not open to any other meaning except that a ‘widow of the son’ of the deceased is a dependant.”
The Bench also noted that the legislature deliberately avoided using the word “pre-deceased” before “son” to include any widow of the son. It observed:
“The legislature, in its wisdom, has deliberately avoided using the word ‘pre-deceased’ before ‘son’ so as to include any widow of the son. The time of her becoming a widow or the death of the son is immaterial.”
The Court further cited the cardinal principle of statutory interpretation that where a provision is clear and unambiguous, it must be interpreted literally unless such interpretation defeats the object of the Act or leads to impracticable results.
Reliance was placed on Crawford v. Spooner, where the Privy Council observed that the construction of an Act must be derived from its bare words and that courts cannot “add, and mend, and, by construction, make up deficiencies” left by the legislature.
The Bench also cited B. Premanand v. Mohan Koikal, wherein this Court emphasised that departure from the literal rule should be an exception, observing that “the literal rule of interpretation simply means that we mean what we say and we say what we mean.”
Applying constitutional principles, the Court observed:
“Any such restrictive interpretation would fail the test of constitutional validity under Article 14 of the Constitution. The classification sought to be made between widowed daughters-in-law based solely on the timing of the husband’s death is manifestly unreasonable and arbitrary.”
The Bench held that such classification bears no rational nexus with the object of the Act, which is to secure maintenance to dependants unable to maintain themselves. It noted:
“In both situations, the women are similarly situated in so far as the object of the Act is concerned, having suffered widowhood, being without spousal support, and facing comparable financial vulnerability.”
Invoking Article 21, the Court observed:
“Denying maintenance to a widowed daughter-in-law from the estate of her deceased father-in-law on a narrow or technical construction of the statute would expose her to destitution and social marginalisation, thereby offending her fundamental right to live with dignity.”
The Bench also referred to ancient Hindu law texts, quoting Manu Smriti, Chapter 8, Verse 389, which emphasises the duty of the family head to support female family members, stating that no mother, father, wife, or son deserves to be forsaken.
The Court observed:
“A son or the legal heirs are bound to maintain all dependant persons out of the estate inherited. Therefore, on the death of the son, it is the pious obligation of the father-in-law to maintain the widowed daughter-in-law, if she is unable to maintain herself either on her own or through the property left behind by the deceased son.”
The Bench distinguished between Section 19, which provides for maintenance during the father-in-law’s lifetime, and Section 22, which deals with maintenance from the estate after death.
It held:
“Section 19 contemplates the maintenance of the daughter-in-law during the lifetime of the father-in-law, whereas Section 22 contemplates ‘maintenance of dependants’, including ‘widowed daughter-in-law’, from the estate of her father-in-law. A claim under Section 22 can, therefore, be raised only after the death of the father-in-law.”
The Supreme Court concluded that no illegality was committed by the High Court in holding the petition maintainable and directing the Family Court to consider it on merits in accordance with law. The appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.
Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Shri V. Giri, Senior Advocates, appeared for the respective appellants, while Shri Vikas Singh, Senior Advocate, appeared for the contesting respondents.
Case Title: Kanchana Rai v. Geeta Sharma
