Father-in-Law Obligated to Maintain Widowed Daughter-in-Law Only If She Cannot Sustain Herself from Own Earnings or Husband’s Estate: Jharkhand High Court
The Jharkhand Excessive Court docket noticed {that a} Hindu spouse’s proper to upkeep after the demise of her husband, by her father-in-law, is restricted to the extent when she is unable to keep up herself out of her personal earnings or different property or, the place she is unable to acquire upkeep both from the property of her husband or her father or mom, or from her son or daughter, if any.
The Court docket thought-about an attraction filed towards the order of Household Court docket directing Father-in-Legislation to pay upkeep to Daughter-in-Legislation and grandchildren.
A Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Rajesh Kumar noticed, “The statutory scheme of the Act is sort of clear that the father-inlaw can be obliged below the legislation to keep up widowed daughter-in-law when all different sources of earnings as said in proviso to sub-section (1) are closed and never obtainable. Subsequently, with a purpose to get upkeep from the father-in-law, the widowed daughter-in-law is required to particularly plead and show by main cogent, dependable and clinching proof that every one different sources of earnings upkeep have said in sub-section (1) usually are not obtainable to her. Within the absence of particular pleadings and proof concerning any of the sources of incomes upkeep said in sub-section (1) both not pleaded or not proved, the statutory obligation couldn’t be mounted on the father-in-law, no matter whether or not or not he holds any coparcenary property, out of which, daughter-in- legislation has not obtained any share.”
Advocate Arvind Kumar Choudhary represented the Appellants.
Case Temporary
An attraction was filed towards the order of the Household Court docket directing the Father-in-law to pay upkeep of Rs. 3000/- per 30 days to Daughter-in-Legislation and Rs. 1000/- per 30 days every of the grandchildren.
It was the case of the Daughter-in-Legislation that for the reason that demise of her husband she alongside together with her two minor kids has been residing at her father or mother’s residence and has no supply of earnings of her personal. It was additionally her submission earlier than the Household Court docket that her husband had constructed two mattress rooms, one varandah, hooked up staircase and bathroom toilet however her in-laws ousted her from that home and with a purpose to seize your complete property of her husband they began creating bother.
Being aggrieved by the order of the Household Court docket, the Father-in-Legislation and Brother-in-Legislation filed an attraction on varied grounds together with that the daughter-in-law isn’t entitled for upkeep from father-in-law below Part 19 and 22 of the Hindu Adoption and Upkeep Act, 1956.
Court docket’s Evaluation
The query earlier than the Court docket pertains to the difficulty of the best of a widowed daughter-in-law and her minor son and daughter to assert upkeep from the father-in-law.
The Court docket referred to Part 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Upkeep Act, 1956 and noticed that the statutory obligation on the father-in-law to keep up the daughter-in-law would come up when the situations exhaustively enumerated in sub-section (1) of Part 19 of the Act of 1956 are fulfilled.
“The statutory scheme of the Act is sort of clear that the father-inlaw can be obliged below the legislation to keep up widowed daughter-in-law when all different sources of earnings as said in proviso to sub-section (1) are closed and never obtainable. Subsequently, with a purpose to get upkeep from the father-in-law, the widowed daughter-in-law is required to particularly plead and show by main cogent, dependable and clinching proof that every one different sources of earnings upkeep have said in sub-section (1) usually are not obtainable to her. Within the absence of particular pleadings and proof concerning any of the sources of incomes upkeep said in sub-section (1) both not pleaded or not proved, the statutory obligation couldn’t be mounted on the father-in-law, no matter whether or not or not he holds any coparcenary property, out of which, daughter-in- legislation has not obtained any share”, the Court docket noticed.
The Court docket additional opined that in line with proviso (a) to part 19, a daughter-in-law may be disentitled to assert upkeep from her father-in-law provided that she is ready to acquire upkeep both from the property of her husband or her father or mom.
“Thus. with a purpose to disentitled Hindu widow of her proper to assert upkeep from her father-in-law as offered in part 19(1) of the Hindu Adoptions and Upkeep Act, it should be established affirmatively that she is ready as of proper to acquire upkeep both from the property of her husband or from her father or mom”, the Court docket held.
Accordingly, the Court docket dismissed the Enchantment.
Trigger Title: Surendra Das V. Anita Das (Impartial Quotation:2025:JHHC:15002-DB)
