Simplified Explanation of the Judgment
In a significant ruling, the Patna High Court upheld the dismissal of maintenance claims made by a widowed daughter-in-law against her father-in-law under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. The Court concluded that since the woman had remarried and also received a share in her deceased husband’s ancestral property, she was no longer entitled to maintenance from her father-in-law.
The appellant, a widow, had filed two maintenance cases in the Family Court at Motihari, claiming financial support for herself and her children from her father-in-law. She alleged that after her husband’s death in 2005, she was neglected by the father-in-law, who had also taken custody of one of her daughters and her son, and had forcibly taken her ornaments and property.
She further claimed that although a revenue officer had partitioned the ancestral property, the father-in-law did not comply with it and later orchestrated a collusive partition suit. According to her, she had no independent source of income and was dependent on the father-in-law, a retired teacher with pension and agricultural income.
The father-in-law, however, contested these claims and alleged that the appellant had remarried in 2008 to one Saurabh Singh and had been living with him since then. He further claimed that a valid partition decree was obtained in Partition Suit No. 48/2006, and she had received her husband’s share of the ancestral property. Thus, he had no obligation to maintain her.
The Family Court found in favor of the father-in-law and dismissed both maintenance petitions. The widow then challenged the decision through two appeals.
The High Court examined whether:
- The father-in-law was obligated to maintain the widowed daughter-in-law after she had remarried.
- The daughter-in-law had received any share in the ancestral property.
- The absence of formal “issues” framed by the Family Court invalidated the decision.
After reviewing the facts and evidence, the High Court upheld the Family Court’s decision. It emphasized that under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, a father-in-law’s obligation ceases if:
- The daughter-in-law remarries.
- She receives a share in the coparcenary property.
Here, the Court noted that:
- The respondent (father-in-law) had presented uncontroverted evidence—both oral and documentary—showing that the appellant had remarried.
- The Family Court had observed this fact and even noted that the appellant refused to cross-examine the father-in-law’s testimony, which went unchallenged.
- Partition Suit No. 48/2006 had been decreed, and the appellant received her husband’s share in ancestral property.
- As such, the appellant had both remarried and obtained property, disqualifying her from claiming maintenance under the Act.
On the claim for maintenance for her children, the Court held that one son and one daughter were already in the custody of the father-in-law and being maintained by him. The two daughters staying with the appellant were not entitled to maintenance from the respondent under Sections 20 or 22 of the Act, as those sections apply to obligations of parents or heirs of a deceased, not the paternal grandfather.
The Court also clarified that even though the Family Court had not formally framed issues, it had considered all relevant facts and evidence in its judgment, and thus no interference was warranted.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment
This ruling is crucial in clarifying the scope of a father-in-law’s liability under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. It confirms that once a widowed daughter-in-law remarries or inherits her husband’s share in property, the father-in-law’s legal duty to maintain her ends.
This judgment also reinforces the importance of proper evidence in maintenance proceedings. It upholds the legal principle that uncontroverted evidence carries significant weight and that remarriage is a complete bar to claims of maintenance under Section 19.
Moreover, it reiterates that procedural lapses, like non-framing of issues by the trial court, will not invalidate a decision if all material facts were considered.
For the general public, this judgment provides legal clarity on the limits of maintenance rights in extended families and underscores the need for clean hands and truthful representations in court.
Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision with reasoning
- Whether a widowed daughter-in-law is entitled to maintenance from her father-in-law under Section 19?
❖ Court’s Decision: No, not if she has remarried or received her share in the husband’s property. - Does remarriage of the widow bar her from claiming maintenance?
❖ Court’s Decision: Yes. The Act clearly bars maintenance after remarriage. - Was the partition decree sufficient proof that she received a share in the property?
❖ Court’s Decision: Yes. The decree and unchallenged testimony established this fact. - Is non-framing of issues by the Family Court a valid ground for appeal?
❖ Court’s Decision: No. Since the judgment considered all evidence, it is not a ground to overturn the decision.
Case Title
Most. Sangeeta Singh vs. Bindhyachal Singh
Case Number
Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 57 and 153 of 2016
Citation(s)
2020 (2) PLJR 912
Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hemant Kumar Srivastava
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy
Names of Advocates and who they appeared for
- Mr. Shivjee Pandey – For the Appellant (MA No. 57/2016)
- Mr. Binay Kant Mani Tripathi – For the Appellant (MA No. 153/2016)
- Mr. Vivekanand Vivek – For the Respondent (in both matters)
Link to Judgment
https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MiM1NyMyMDE2IzEjTg==-rOIZzbSlZlY=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
