Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (HAMA), 1956

The Supreme Court ruled that a widowed daughter-in-law is entitled to claim maintenance from her father-in-law’s estate under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.

Background of the Dispute

• Origin of the Case: The case arose from a family dispute involving the estate of Dr. Mahendra Prasad, who died in December 2021. 
  • His son Ranjit Sharma died in March 2023, after which his wife, Geeta Sharma, sought maintenance from her father-in-law’s estate.
• Family Court’s Decision: The Court dismissed the petition on the ground that Geeta Sharma was not a widow at the time of her father-in-law’s death and therefore did not qualify as a dependant under the Act.
• High Court’s Ruling: Overturned, holding that a widow of a son qualifies as a dependant under HAMA.
• Supreme Court: Upheld HC, clarified estate-based liability.

Supreme Court’s Legal Reasoning

• Interpretation of Dependants: The Supreme Court examined Section 21(vii) of the Act and held that the phrase “any widow of his son” is clear, unqualified, and does not depend on the timing of widowhood.
• Timing Irrelevant: The Court ruled that whether the daughter-in-law became a widow before or after the father-in-law’s death is immaterial for claiming maintenance.
• Scope of Section 22: The Court clarified that Section 22 mandates all heirs inheriting the estate of a deceased Hindu to maintain his dependants from the inherited property.
• Estate-Centric Obligation: Maintenance liability was held to be estate-centric rather than person-centric, binding all legal heirs proportionately.
• Supreme Court’s Reference to Manu Smriti: Verse Quoted: Manu Smriti, Chapter 8, Verse 389 – “No mother, no father, no wife, and no son deserves to be forsaken. A person who abandons these blameless relatives should be fined six hundred units by the king.”
• • Court’s Interpretation: The verse underscores the duty of the family head to support dependants, especially female family members.

Check Out UPSC CSE Books

Visit PW Store

Constitutional and Social Significance

• Article 14 Perspective: The Court held that distinguishing widows based solely on the timing of the husband’s death is arbitrary and violative of the right to equality.
• Article 21 Perspective: Denying maintenance on technical grounds was found to undermine the right to live with dignity and risk social marginalisation.
• Conditional Nature of Maintenance: The Court clarified that maintenance is not automatic and depends on the widow’s inability to maintain herself from other lawful sources.

DOWNLOAD PDF