The Jharkhand High Court has upheld an order directing an elderly father-in-law to pay ₹17,000 per month as maintenance to his widowed daughter-in-law and two minor grandchildren, observing that advanced age alone cannot absolve him of his responsibility to maintain dependent family members.
Background
The case arose after a woman approached the Family Court, Dhanbad, following the death of her husband in October 2020. She sought maintenance for herself and her two minor sons, stating that they were not receiving adequate financial support from her father-in-law. She further submitted that she had no independent source of livelihood and had not received any share in her deceased husband's estate. According to her, the financial difficulties had also affected her children's education.
The father-in-law opposed the maintenance application, arguing that he was over 83 years old and his wife, who was also above 80, depended on him. He admitted receiving a government pension of approximately ₹32,000 per month but disputed the allegations regarding his other financial resources. He also claimed that he had been bearing the educational expenses of his grandchildren.
After examining the evidence, the Family Court directed him to pay ₹7,000 per month to his widowed daughter-in-law and ₹5,000 each to her two minor children until they attained majority. The maintenance was made payable from September 24, 2021, the date of filing the application.
Challenging the order, the father-in-law approached the High Court, arguing that the Family Court had failed to properly consider his financial circumstances, old age and responsibility towards his dependent wife. He also questioned the legal basis for directing maintenance from his pension and other family assets.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Manoj Prasad examined the provisions of Sections 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. The Court explained that these provisions recognise the maintenance rights of widowed daughters-in-law and certain dependent family members. It also considered the Supreme Court's ruling in Kanchan Rai v. Geeta Sharma & Others, 2026 INSC 54, which examined the scope of maintenance rights available to widowed daughters-in-law.
The Bench also examined the financial documents placed before it. The father-in-law's monthly pension exceeded ₹32,000, while a shop leased in his wife's name generated monthly rent of ₹17,000, subsequently increased to ₹18,700 under the lease agreement. Taking these amounts into account, the Court noted that the family's combined monthly income exceeded ₹50,000.
Dealing with the argument that the father-in-law was himself elderly and suffering from age-related health problems, the Court observed that his circumstances did not automatically extinguish his responsibility towards his widowed daughter-in-law and grandchildren. The Bench made it clear that the statutory obligation to maintain dependent family members could not be avoided merely on the ground of advanced age.
"The pious responsibility of maintaining the widowed daughter-in-law and the grandchildren does not get exonerated on account of the age of the present appellant," the Court observed.
The Bench further found that the maintenance amount awarded by the Family Court was not unreasonable in view of the admitted monthly income exceeding ₹50,000. It also noted that substantial arrears remained unpaid despite there being no stay on the maintenance order.
Accordingly, the Jharkhand High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the monthly maintenance of ₹17,000.
It directed that any outstanding arrears be paid within a maximum period of two months, without imposing any costs.
