Father-in-Law Liable to Maintain Widowed Daughter-in-Law, Child: Chhattisgarh HC Upholds Family Court Order

The Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld a Family Court order directing a father-in-law to pay maintenance to his widowed daughter-in-law and minor granddaughter, observing that the statutory obligation under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 requires a father-in-law to support a widowed daughter-in-law who is unable to maintain herself.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal dismissed an appeal filed by the father-in-law challenging a Family Court judgment that had partly allowed the daughter-in-law’s application under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 and awarded maintenance of Rs. 1,000 per month to the widowed daughter-in-law and Rs. 500 per month to her minor daughter from the date of filing of the application.

The High Court held that the Family Court had correctly appreciated the evidence on record and that no interference with the maintenance order was warranted.

The appeal arose from a dispute between Narayan Uike and his widowed daughter-in-law Gunja Uike, who had approached the Family Court seeking maintenance after the death of her husband.

The marriage between Gunja Uike and the appellant’s son had been solemnized in 2015, and during the marriage she conceived a child. However, her husband died on 10.01.2017, after which she gave birth to their daughter.

According to the pleadings before the court, following her husband’s death the relationship between the daughter-in-law and her father-in-law deteriorated and she was allegedly subjected to harassment and eventually forced to leave the matrimonial home along with her child.

It was the case of the daughter-in-law that she had no independent source of livelihood and was compelled to reside with her parents after being expelled from the matrimonial house.

She claimed that the appellant possessed agricultural land and earned substantial income from it, and therefore sought monthly maintenance of Rs. 32,000 for herself and her minor child under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act.

The father-in-law denied the allegations and contended that the marriage between his son and the respondent had been a love marriage, and therefore allegations of harassment or dowry-related conduct were unfounded.

He further argued that the daughter-in-law had voluntarily left the matrimonial home in order to pursue compassionate appointment following the death of her husband.

The appellant also disputed the existence of ancestral property and asserted that he had no such income as alleged.

During the proceedings before the Family Court, the daughter-in-law entered the witness box and reiterated the allegations set out in her pleadings.

She deposed that after the death of her husband she had no means to support herself and her child and had been compelled to depend on her parental family for survival. In cross-examination, she stated that her brother occasionally provided grocery items and reiterated that she had been denied entry into the matrimonial home after the birth of her daughter.

Significantly, the father-in-law did not step into the witness box to support his defence, and the High Court observed that such non-examination of a party gives rise to an adverse inference against him.

The Court relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Vidyadhar v. Manikrao (1999) 3 SCC 573, which holds that when a party abstains from entering the witness box to depose on oath, a presumption may arise that the case set up by that party is not correct.

After examining the material on record, the High Court held that the Family Court had properly appreciated the evidence and rightly concluded that the father-in-law was under an obligation to maintain the widowed daughter-in-law and the minor child.

The Court also referred to the statutory scheme of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, particularly Section 19, which provides that a Hindu wife is entitled to be maintained by her father-in-law after the death of her husband, provided she is unable to maintain herself from her own earnings, property, or from the estate of her husband or children.

The provision places a legal obligation on the father-in-law to provide maintenance during his lifetime where the conditions prescribed in the statute are satisfied.

In this context, the High Court also took note of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Kanchana Rai v. Geeta Sharma (2026 SCC OnLine SC 59), which clarified that a widowed daughter-in-law is treated as a “dependant” under the Act and is entitled to claim maintenance if she is unable to sustain herself through other sources.

Applying these principles to the facts of the case, the Court observed that the respondent had established that she and her minor daughter had no independent source of livelihood and that the father-in-law had not produced any evidence to rebut the claim.

The Court therefore concluded that the Family Court had correctly held the appellant liable to provide maintenance.

Finding no illegality or perversity in the Family Court’s judgment, the High Court declined to interfere with the maintenance order and dismissed the appeal.

Case Title: Narayan Uike v. Gunja Uike & Anr.

Bench: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

Date of Judgment: 28.02.2026