The Chhattisgarh High Court affirms the Family Court’s rejection of maintenance to a widowed daughter-in-law under Section 19, clarifying that maintenance is not available when the applicant has other sufficient means and the father-in-law lacks financial capacity. Existing precedent is upheld, reinforcing limitations on Section 19 claims against father-in-law, with binding value for future cases in Chhattisgarh.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | FA(MAT)/212/2023 of SMT. ARCHANA RATHORE Vs Radhelal Rathore |
| CNR | CGHC010239372023 |
| Date of Registration | 04-08-2023 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OFF |
| Judgment Author |
|
| Court | High Court Of Chhattisgarh |
| Bench | Division Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal and Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, JJ. |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority within the jurisdiction of Chhattisgarh High Court |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms the decision of the Family Court, Bilaspur |
| Type of Law | Family Law / Maintenance under Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi (3–8 sentences) |
The right of a widowed daughter-in-law to claim maintenance from her father-in-law under Section 19 is contingent on her inability to maintain herself from her own means or the estate of her husband/parents/children. The Court found that the appellant had already withdrawn significant sums from insurance and FDRs and had sold other assets, and did not adequately prove her incapacity to maintain herself. Additionally, the father-in-law’s only income was a modest pension, and no evidence was provided of any other property held by him. The application for maintenance was rightly dismissed based on these findings. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | None cited in the judgment |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Interpretation of Sections 19, 21(iii), and 22 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The appellant and her minor son (through her) applied for maintenance from their father-in-law/grandfather, alleging he ousted them and withheld stridhan despite having substantial income. The respondent claimed to be retired with only pension income and asserted the appellant had already withdrawn insurance/FDR amounts and sold other assets belonging to her late husband. The Family Court found in favour of the respondent, and this finding was affirmed on appeal. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of the Chhattisgarh High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, particularly in interpreting Section 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 |
| Follows | Family Court, Bilaspur’s decision in Civil Suit No. 420-A/2018 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that a widowed daughter-in-law cannot claim maintenance under Section 19 if she has sufficient means from her own assets or property obtained from her deceased husband.
- Clarifies that the obligation of a father-in-law is subject to his financial means; mere pension income, without other substantial property, is insufficient to impose maintenance liability.
- Establishes the necessity for clear, specific evidence demonstrating inability to self-maintain and absence of other means before invoking Section 19.
- Lawyers must ensure detailed pleadings and proof regarding both the need of the applicant and the financial capacity of the respondent father-in-law.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court identified two main questions: (1) whether the appellant was unable to maintain herself, and (2) whether she proved entitlement to maintenance under Section 19.
- The Court reviewed pleadings and evidence, noting the absence of clear proof that the appellant was unable to maintain herself, especially after receiving substantial insurance and FDR proceeds and selling the deceased’s motorcycle.
- The respondent’s evidence highlighted his limited means, consisting only of a pension of ₹1,991/- per month and lack of ancestral property.
- The Court analyzed Sections 19, 21(iii), and 22 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, emphasizing that Section 19 creates an enabling, but not absolute, right; its operation is contingent on the applicant’s lack of other means and the respondent’s financial capacity.
- The Court affirmed the Family Court’s dismissal, concluding that the statutory requirements were not satisfied.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Asserted that the father-in-law is duty bound to maintain the widowed daughter-in-law as he receives substantial pension and additional income.
- Claimed ouster from the family house and non-payment of maintenance.
- Sought ₹30,000/- per month maintenance and return of stridhan.
Respondent
- Denied allegations and asserted retirement status with sole income as pension.
- Claimed the appellant had already withdrawn insurance and FDR amounts and sold other property.
- Argued absence of means to pay maintenance and lack of any property or income apart from pension.
Factual Background
The appellants, a widowed daughter-in-law and her minor son, sought monthly maintenance and return of stridhan from their father-in-law after the death of the husband/father in June 2018. The respondent contested the claim, arguing he was retired, received only a modest pension, and that the appellants had already withdrawn proceeds from insurance and FDRs as well as sold the deceased’s assets. The Family Court rejected the application for maintenance, and the High Court heard the appeal.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, provides a right to maintenance from the father-in-law to a widowed daughter-in-law, but only if she is unable to maintain herself from her own earnings or property or from the estate of her husband/parents/children.
- Section 19(2) limits enforcement if the father-in-law lacks sufficient means or property.
- Section 21(iii) identifies the widow as a dependant, and Section 22 outlines the liability of heirs to maintain dependants out of the estate inherited.
- The Court adopted a strict reading of these provisions, requiring substantive lack of means on the part of the applicant and positive means on the part of the respondent.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment; both judges were in agreement.
Procedural Innovations
- The appeal, though initially listed for admission, was heard finally and disposed of on consent of both parties.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision upholds existing law regarding maintenance rights of widowed daughter-in-law against father-in-law under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.