Case Name: Roshan Lal Saw v. Nilam Kumari & Ors.
Case Number: F.A. No. 229 of 2024
Date: 3 November 2026
Court: High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
Quorum: Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Manoj Prasad
FACTS
Appellant Roshan Lal Saw was the father of the deceased, Late Suraj Kumar and the father-in-law of Respondent No. 1, Nilam Kumari. Suraj Kumar died on 27.10.2020, leaving his widow and two minor sons. After his death, Nilam Kumari had moved an application under Sections 19 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 for grant of maintenance for herself and for her minor children.
In the application, she had stated that she does not have any other income or source of earning and had not received any share in her deceased husband’s property. Further, she had alleged that the appellant draws a monthly pension of ₹32,000.
The Family Court, Dhanbad, ordered the appellant to pay Nilam Kumari a monthly allowance of ₹7,000 and also ₹5,000 per month to her two minor sons till they came of age. Maintenance was directed from the date of filing of the petition, that is, 24.09.2021. Dissatisfied with the order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Jharkhand High Court under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
ISSUES
- Whether a widow daughter-in-law is eligible for maintenance from her father-in-law as per the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956?
- Whether the age and economic position of the appellant and his wife dependent upon him were grounds enough to waive his maintenance liability?
- Whether the maintenance fixed by the Family Court was a fair amount?
LAW
- Section 19 – Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956: Provisions for maintenance of a widowed daughter-in-law by the father-in-law if certain conditions, as stipulated in the provision, are satisfied, namely, the inability of the former to support herself and the coparcenary property available in the possession of the latter.
- Section 20 – Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956: Places an obligation on a Hindu to maintain their children and aged parents.
- Section 21(iv) & (vii) – Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956: Defines dependants as including minor son of the predeceased son and widow of the son, provided that the widow has not remarried.
- Section 22 – Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956: Places an obligation on the heirs inheriting the estate of the deceased Hindu to maintain the deceased’s dependants out of the estate which they inherit.
- Section 23 – Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956: Provides the criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance.
- Section 19(1) – Family Courts Act, 1984: Provides for appeals against the judgments/orders of a Family Court as per the conditions stipulated in the provision.
- Articles 14 & 21 – Indian Constitution: Provide for equality before the law and the right to life and dignity, respectively.
ARGUMENTS
APPLICANT- In this case, the Appellant contended that the Family Court had failed to consider Sections 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. The Appellant contended that there was no documentary evidence to show any income except his pension of ₹32,000. He further contended that he had to take care of his old wife and himself, and his grandchildren’s education expenses were also already taken care of by him. Moreover, he contended that ancestral agricultural land cannot be considered income.
RESPONDENT- It was contended by the respondents that the appellant was the head of the family and that he had control over ancestral property and properties other than the ancestral ones. It was further contended that Nilam Kumari had no separate means of earning and she had not been given any portion of her late husband’s property. The respondents placed reliance on the rent agreement under which the amount of rent earned monthly was ₹17,000, and it had risen to ₹18,700.
ANALYSIS
Sections 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 have been considered by the High Court of Jharkhand, where it was found that the widowed daughter-in-law, along with the minor children of the pre-deceased son, can claim maintenance under the Act as dependents.
This is in view of the judgment delivered in the case of Kanchan Rai v. Geeta Sharma & Ors., 2026 INSC 54, where it has been held by the Supreme Court that the use of the phrase “any widow of his son” in section 21(vii) of the said Act cannot be confined only to the widow of a pre-deceased son. The same would amount to a violation of Article 14.
The Appellant’s plea on grounds of his age and dependent wife was rejected by the Court, which noted that his monthly pension was above ₹32,000 and his rent amounted to more than ₹18,000 per month, which made his total monthly income amount to more than ₹50,000. Thus, the plea on account of his age and personal circumstances was of no help to him to avoid maintenance of his widow daughter-in-law and grandchildren.
As far as the amount of maintenance is concerned, the total maintenance of ₹17,000 per month was considered reasonable by the Court.
JUDGMENT
The Jharkhand High Court rejected the appeal and confirmed the order of the Family Court in favour of the widow daughter-in-law and minor children, that they would get Rs. 7,000 monthly to widow daughter-in-law and Rs. 5,000 each to the minor children till they become major. It was also ordered that any pending arrears for maintenance shall be paid within two months maximum.
CONCLUSION
This case stresses the maintenance rights of widowed daughters-in-law and minor grandchildren as per Hindu law. This is significant in the sense that the issue of maintenance rights cannot be evaded based on the age or condition of the father alone. This case is also essential from the point of view of the proper interpretation of maintenance clauses in law.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY- DEBARATI CHATTERJEE
