Recently, the Supreme Court held that a Hindu daughter-in-law who becomes a widow even after the death of her father-in-law is entitled to claim maintenance from his estate under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. The Court delivered a clear message against exclusionary interpretations, observing that “the time of her becoming a widow or the death of the son is immaterial.”
Brief facts:
The case arose from an intra-family dispute concerning the estate of a deceased Hindu male, who passed away in December 2021, leaving behind multiple heirs. One of his sons died subsequently, following which the widow of that son sought maintenance from the father-in-law’s estate by invoking Section 21 and Section 22 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. The Family Court rejected her claim on the ground that she was not a widow at the time of her father-in-law’s death. On appeal, the High Court reversed this finding, holding that she qualified as a “dependant” under the statute and directed adjudication on the quantum of maintenance. This view was challenged before the Apex Court by other heirs, including the widow of a predeceased son and a claimant asserting rights as a long-term live-in partner of the deceased.
Contentions of the Appellants:
The Appellants contended that the statutory phrase “any widow of his son” under Section 21(vii) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, must be read narrowly to include only widows of predeceased sons. The Counsel argued that extending maintenance rights to a daughter-in-law whose husband died after the father-in-law would distort succession principles, unsettle estate distribution, and go beyond legislative intent. Reliance was placed on a restrictive construction to preserve certainty in inheritance-related claims.
Contentions of the Respondent:
On the other hand, the Respondent argued that the language of Section 21(vii) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, is plain, unqualified, and deliberately expansive. The Counsel submitted that the statute does not hinge on the timing of the son’s death and that any such judicially created distinction would defeat the social welfare purpose of the Act. The Respondent further urged that exclusion based on timing would be constitutionally infirm under Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution.
Observation of the Court:
The Court observed that “any widow of his son” is a phrase that is “clear and unambiguous” and admits of no restrictive gloss. The Bench held that the legislature consciously avoided the expression “widow of a predeceased son” and that courts cannot “add or subtract any word from the text of the statute.”
The Court noted that literal interpretation must prevail where statutory language is explicit, reiterating that “the courts cannot correct or make up a perceived deficiency in the words used by the legislature.” Drawing from precedent, it emphasised that hardship or inconvenience is no ground to depart from plain meaning.
The Court further observed that any attempt to differentiate widowed daughters-in-law based solely on the timing of the husband’s death would be “manifestly unreasonable and arbitrary.” The Bench held that such classification bears no rational nexus to the object of the Act and violates Article 14 of the Constitution, adding that denial of maintenance on such technical grounds would also offend Article 21 of the Constitution, as it risks exposing widowed women to “destitution and social marginalisation.”
The Court noted that the provisions of the Act must be read “purposively and in conformity with constitutional values, so as to advance social justice and protect the dignity of vulnerable dependants rather than defeat it.”
The decision of the Court:
In light of the foregoing discussion, the Apex Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the High Court’s decision, holding that “any widow of the son” of a deceased Hindu qualifies as a dependant under Section 21(vii) and is entitled to claim maintenance from the estate under Section 22 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, irrespective of when widowhood occurred, the ratio decisively affirming a literal, purposive, and constitutionally aligned interpretation of maintenance rights.
Case Title: Kanchana Rai v. Geeta Sharma & Ors.
Case No.: SLP (C) Nos. 1544–1545 of 2026
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Mithal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.V.N. Bhatti
Advocate for the Petitioner: Sr. Adv. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, AOR D. Abhinav Rao, Sr. Adv. V. Giri, Adv. Arvind Nayyar, AOR B. Shravanth Shanker, and Adv. Rahul Narang.
Advocate for the Respondent: Sr. Adv. Vikas Singh, Adv. Varun Singh, AOR Nitin Saluja, Adv. Deepeika Kalia, Adv. Alankriti Dwivedi, Adv. Somesa Gupta, Adv. Sudeep Chandra, and Adv. Khushi.
Read Judgment@ Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
