The Supreme Court has ruled that a widowed Hindu daughter-in-law is entitled to maintenance from the property of her father-in-law under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act irrespective of whether her husband died during the lifetime of her father-in-law or after.

A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti said such a right was vested with a Hindu widowed daughter-in-law not only under the statutory Act but also under the Constitution and the ancient Manusmriti.

“A son or the legal heirs are bound to maintain all the dependent persons out of the estate inherited, i.e. all persons whom the deceased was legally and morally bound to maintain. Therefore, on the death of a son, it is the pious obligation of the father-in-law to maintain a widowed daughter-in-law if she is unable to maintain herself either on her own or through the property left behind by the deceased son. The Act does not envisage to rule out the above obligation of the father-in-law to maintain his widowed daughter-in-law, irrespective of the fact when she became a widow whether prior or after his death,” Justice Mithal wrote.

The apex court passed the ruling while dismissing the appeals filed by Kanchana Rai and Uma Devi, relatives of Dr Mahendra Prasad, challenging the high court’s direction to examine the maintenance plea of his widowed daughter-in-law, Geeta Sharma, from his estate.

The apex court said the classification sought to be made between widowed daughters-in-law based solely on when her father-in-law died before or after the passing of her husband was unreasonable.

“Such a classification bears no rational nexus with the object and purpose of the Act, which is to secure maintenance to dependents who are unable to maintain themselves. In both situations, the women are similarly situated insofar as the object of the Act is concerned, 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 is manifestly arbitrary and violative of the guarantee of equality before law under Article 14 of the Constitution,” the top court said.

“Any interpretation contrary to one opined above would also infringe upon Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life with dignity,” the bench added.