Hindu Widowed Daughter-in-Law Entitled to Maintenance from Father-in-Law’s Estate: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on January 13, 2026 held that a Hindu widowed daughter-in-law is entitled to seek maintenance from the estate of her deceased father-in-law. Court observed that denying such a claim on a narrow or technical interpretation of the statute would expose her to destitution and social marginalisation, thereby offending her fundamental right to live with dignity.

A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and S V N Bhatti said that a son or the legal heirs are bound to maintain all dependent persons out of the estate inherited, that is, all persons whom the deceased was legally and morally bound to maintain.

The bench said that on the death of a son, it becomes 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 from the property left behind by the deceased son. It clarified that the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 does not envisage ruling out this obligation, irrespective of whether the woman became a widow before or after the death of the father-in-law.

Court was dealing with civil appeals filed by Kanchana Rai and Uma Devi, and examined whether a daughter-in-law who becomes a widow after the death of her father-in-law can be treated as a dependant upon his estate and entitled to claim maintenance from it.

Noting that the law relating to maintenance of Hindus has been codified under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, the bench referred to Section 21 of the Act. It found that the relatives of the deceased, including “any widow of his son”, are dependants, provided such a widow is unable to maintain herself from her husband’s estate, or from the estate of her son or daughter, and in the case of a grandson’s widow, from her father-in-law’s estate.

The bench further noted that Section 22 of the Act provides for the maintenance of dependants and casts an obligation upon all heirs of a deceased Hindu to maintain such dependants out of the estate inherited by them.

In simpler terms, court said, all heirs of the deceased Hindu are obliged to maintain the dependants from the funds inherited from the estate of the deceased.

Court also recorded that sub-section (2) of Section 22 states that where a dependant has not obtained a share in the estate of the deceased Hindu, either by testamentary or intestate succession, such dependant would be entitled to maintenance from those who inherit the estate.

Accordingly, the bench said that anyone succeeding to the estate of a deceased Hindu is under an obligation to maintain the dependants of the deceased.

Interpreting Section 21 of the Act, the bench observed that one of the relatives expressly defined as a dependant is “any widow of his son”. This, it held, clearly means that a widow of the deceased Hindu’s son is a dependant irrespective of the time at which she becomes a widow.

Court said the definition is clear and unambiguous, and does not permit any other interpretation. It rejected the argument that only widows of predeceased sons would fall within the definition, observing that such a restrictive reading is not supported by the statutory text.

The bench emphasised that the legislature deliberately avoided using the word “predeceased” before “son” in Section 21, in order to include any widow of the son. The timing of the son’s death or the widowhood, it said, is immaterial.

It further underscored that courts cannot add or subtract words from a statute, nor rewrite its provisions by assuming something not evident from the plain language. Any such restrictive interpretation, the bench added, would also fail the test of constitutional validity under Article 14 of the Constitution.

Rejecting the classification sought to be made between widowed daughters-in-law based solely on whether their husbands died during or after the lifetime of the father-in-law, the court termed such a distinction manifestly unreasonable and arbitrary.

It held that in both situations, the women are similarly placed, having suffered widowhood, being without spousal support, and facing comparable financial vulnerability. Denial of maintenance to one category based on a fortuitous circumstance beyond their control, the bench said, violates the guarantee of equality before law under Article 14.

Court also opined that any contrary interpretation would infringe Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life with dignity. It reiterated that the right to life has been expanded to include the right to livelihood and basic sustenance.

The bench said that 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 violating her fundamental right to live with dignity. It added that the provisions of the Act must be read purposively and in conformity with constitutional values to advance social justice and protect vulnerable dependants.

Court also referred to Manu Smriti, which states that no mother, father, wife or son should be forsaken, and that a person abandoning such blameless relatives should be penalised. The bench said this underscores the traditional duty of a family head to support female family members.

Reliance was also placed on Section 19 of the Act, which provides for maintenance of a widowed daughter-in-law by the father-in-law during his lifetime. The bench clarified that while Section 19 operates during the lifetime of the father-in-law, Section 22 deals with maintenance of dependants, including widowed daughters-in-law, from the estate after his death.

Thus, court explained, a claim under Section 22 arises only after the death of the father-in-law, whereas Section 19 governs maintenance during his lifetime.

Concluding the matter, the bench held that “any widow of the son” of a deceased Hindu is a dependant within the meaning of Section 21(vii) of the Act and is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 22.

Upholding the High Court’s order, court said no illegality was committed in holding the petition filed by the widow of the deceased’s son to be maintainable, and in directing the Family Court to consider it on merits in accordance with law.

Case Title: Kanchana Rai Vs Geeta Sharma & Ors and connected matter

Judgment Date: January 13, 2026

Bench: Justices Pankaj Mithal and S V N Bhatti