HAMA | Father-In-Law's Liability To Maintain Widowed Daughter-In-Law Dependent On Income From Co-Parcenary Property: Patna High Court

Post By 24 Law
February 20, 2025

Pranav B Prem

In a significant ruling, the Patna High Court has clarified that under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA), a father-in-law is not automatically liable to pay maintenance to his widowed daughter-in-law unless he has sufficient income from the co-parcenary property.

Case Background

The case arose from a criminal revision petition challenging the order of the Sessions Court, which had directed the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant, Puja Kumari, to pay her a monthly maintenance of Rs. 5,000. Initially, the complainant had sought a protection order, residence order, and maintenance from her husband, parents-in-law, and other relatives under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM), Munger, in 2017, directed all respondents to provide residence and maintenance and granted a protection order in favor of the complainant. However, during the pendency of the appeal, the complainant's husband passed away, prompting the Sessions Court to modify the order and impose the maintenance liability solely on the father-in-law and mother-in-law.

Observations by the High Court

Justice Jitendra Kumar, presiding over the matter, emphasized: "Section 19 clearly shows that liability of father-in-law to maintain his daughter-in-law is dependent upon income from the co-parcenary property, if any. But learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no such coparcenary property. There is only one residential house for the joint family where the complainant is free to live. He also submits that the father-in-law is just a pensioner and has no additional means to maintain her daughter-in-law. Moreover, mother-in-law has no liability to maintain her daughter-in-law. Hence, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law." The Court noted that under Section 19(2) of HAMA, the obligation of the father-in-law to maintain his widowed daughter-in-law ceases if he does not have the means to do so from any co-parcenary property in his possession. The obligation also ceases if the widow remarries.

Legal Interpretation of Section 19 of HAMA

The Court reiterated the conditions under Section 19(1) of HAMA, stating that a widowed daughter-in-law is entitled to maintenance from her father-in-law only if:

She is unable to maintain herself out of her own earnings or other property.

She has no property of her own.

She is unable to obtain maintenance from the estate of her husband, father, mother, or children.

Further, Section 19(2) states that the obligation is only enforceable if the father-in-law has sufficient means from any co-parcenary property in his possession, out of which the daughter-in-law has not obtained any share.

Petitioners’ Arguments

The petitioners, including the complainant’s father-in-law, contended that:

The father-in-law did not possess any co-parcenary property apart from a joint residential house.

He was a pensioner with limited financial means and could not afford to pay maintenance.

At the time the initial order was passed by the magistrate, the complainant's husband was alive, and hence no liability for maintenance should have been imposed on the in-laws at that stage.

High Court’s Ruling

The High Court found merit in the petitioners' arguments and observed: "I find that learned A.C.J.M, without discussing the law and the facts, has passed the maintenance order against all the respondents including the husband, both parents-in-law and other relatives. Such order could not be sustainable in the eye of law. Only husband could have been directed to pay maintenance, at the most, subject to fulfillment of legal requirements." The Court further emphasized: "Even liability of the father-in-law is not absolute. Certain conditions as stipulated under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, are required to be fulfilled before fastening such liability on the father-in-law. But, learned Sessions Court has not discussed such relevant law and facts before passing the impugned order."

Consequently, the High Court set aside the maintenance order against the father-in-law and mother-in-law and remanded the matter to the ACJM, Munger, for fresh consideration, directing it to assess the widow’s entitlement based on relevant facts and evidence.

Protection and Residence Orders Remain Intact

While quashing the maintenance order, the Court clarified: "The protection order as well as residence order passed by learned A.C.J.M is not disturbed. The complainant is at liberty to live in the joint residence of the family."