Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(SC) 53

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Pankaj Mithal, S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ.
Kanchana Rai – Appellant
Versus
Geeta Sharma & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 245 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 1544-1545 of 2026)
With
Uma Devi – Appellant
Versus
Geeta Sharma & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 247 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 1737 of 2026)
Decided On : 13-01-2026

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s)/ Item 35: Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv. (argued by) Mr. D. Abhinav Rao, AOR
Item 35.1 : Mr. V. Giri, Sr. Adv. (argued by) Mr. Arvind Nayyar, Sr. Adv. Mr. B. Shravanth Shanker, AOR Mr. Rahul Narang, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv. (argued by) Mr. Varun Singh, Adv. Mr. Nitin Saluja, AOR Ms. Deepeika Kalia, Adv. Ms. Alankriti Dwivedi, Adv. Ms. Somesa Gupta, Adv. Mr. Sudeep Chandra, Adv. Ms. Khushi, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Liability to maintain widowed daughter-in-law – Any widow of son of a deceased Hindu is a dependant within meaning of Section 21 (vii) of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 and is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 22 of Act.
(2) Denial of maintenance to one category based on a fortuitous circumstance based solely on timing of husband’s death, which is beyond their control is manifestly arbitrary and violative of guarantee of equality before law under Article 14 of Constitution.
(3) Interpretation of Statute – Judges must take the words as they are and give them their natural meaning, unless controlled or altered by context or preamble – Courts cannot correct or supply an assumed omission in statute, as Legislature is presumed to have intended what it has expressly stated.

Headnote:
(A) Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 – Sections 21 and 22 read with Section 4 – Liability to maintain widowed daughter-in-law – Any widow of son of a deceased Hindu is a dependant within meaning of Section 21 (vii) of Act and is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 22 of Act – Right to life has been judicially expanded to include right to livelihood and basic sustenance – Denying maintenance to a widowed daughter-in-law from estate of her deceased father-in law on a narrow or technical construction of statute would expose her to destitution and social marginalization, thereby offending her fundamental right to live with dignity – Provisions of the Act must be read purposively and in conformity with constitutional values, so as to advance social justice and protect dignity of vulnerable dependants rather than defeat it – Section 4 of the Act has overriding effect but it does not erase away fundamental principles of Hindu law particularly where some doubt is raised about codified provisions – Act does not envisage to rule out obligation of father-in-law to maintain his widowed daughter-in-law, irrespective of fact when she became a widow whether prior or after his death – Denial of maintenance to one category based on a fortuitous circumstance based solely on timing of husband’s death, which is beyond their control is manifestly arbitrary and violative of guarantee of equality before law under Article 14 of Constitution. (Paras 23, 24, 25, 26 and 29)
(B) Interpretation of Statute – Principle of Literal Interpretation – It is a cardinal principle of interpretation of law that where provision is clear and unambiguous, it has to be interpreted literally provided literal interpretation is not in conflict with purpose of the Act or is otherwise not impractical – Where words are absolutely clear and unambiguous, recourse cannot be had to any other principle – Judges must take the words as they are and give them their natural meaning, unless controlled or altered by context or preamble – Departure from literal rule should be an exception in very rare cases – Even if a literal interpretation results in hardship or inconvenience, same cannot be a ground to depart from plain meaning of statutory text – Courts cannot correct or supply an assumed omission in statute, as Legislature is presumed to have intended what it has expressly stated – Courts cannot add or subtract any word from text of statute – Provisions of statute cannot be re-written by courts by assuming or inferring something which is not implicit from plain language of statute. (Paras 17, 19, 20, 21 and 22)
Facts of the case:
Point in issue is, whether a daughter-in-law, who becomes widow after death of her father-in-law, is dependent upon estate of father in-law and entitled to claim maintenance from his estate.
Findings of Court:
No illegality has been committed by the High Court in passing the impugned order holding the petition of Respondent no.1, who is a widow of the son of the deceased, to be maintainable and in directing the Family Court to consider it on merits in accordance with law.
Result : Appeals dismissed.

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, the principles and provisions discussed are primarily centered around the rights of widowed daughters-in-law to claim maintenance from the estate of their deceased father-in-law under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. The judgment emphasizes that a widow of a son of a deceased Hindu is considered a dependant within the meaning of the Act and is entitled to claim maintenance, regardless of the timing of her widowhood relative to her father-in-law's death (!) (!) (!) .

Regarding the applicability to a Domestic Violence (D.V.) Act, the core principles of social justice, protection of vulnerable dependants, and the right to live with dignity are highly relevant. The D.V. Act aims to provide protection to women from domestic violence, ensuring their right to safety, dignity, and livelihood. The legal reasoning that supports the entitlement of widowed daughters-in-law to maintenance from their in-laws' estate aligns with the protective intent of the D.V. Act, which recognizes the importance of safeguarding women’s rights and well-being within domestic settings.

While the specific statutory provisions and judicial interpretations in the document pertain to the Hindu Maintenance Act, the underlying principles of recognizing women as dependants deserving support, and the emphasis on social justice and dignity, can be applicable to the D.V. Act as well. The D.V. Act also aims to prevent social marginalization and destitution of women facing domestic violence, which is consistent with the Court’s reasoning on the importance of providing basic sustenance and dignity to vulnerable women.

In summary, the principles of dependency, entitlement to maintenance, and protection of dignity articulated in this case can be relevant and applicable when interpreting or applying provisions of the D.V. Act, especially in contexts where women are vulnerable and require legal safeguards to ensure their safety, support, and social dignity.

JUDGMENT :

PANKAJ MITHAL, J.

Leave granted.

2. Heard Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Shri V. Giri, senior counsel appearing for the respective appellants in the two appeals and Shri Vikas Singh, senior counsel for the contesting respondents, in both the appeals.

3. The controversy is inter se the heirs/family members of late Dr. Mahendra Prasad who died on 27.12.2021. He had three sons, namely, Ranjit Sharma, who passed away on 02.03.2023, Devinder Rai, husband of the appellant- Kanchana Rai and Rajeev Sharma. It is alleged that late Dr. Mahendra Prasad executed a registered Will on 18.07.2011, appointing the appellant, the wife of his pre-deceased son Devinder Rai, as the executor while bequeathing his properties in favour of her two sons, completely ignoring his own two sons namely Ranjit Sharma and Rajeev Sharma.

4. Smt. Geeta Sharma, Respondent No. 1, wife of one of the sons, Ranjit Sharma, who died after the death of Dr. Mahendra Prasad, applied for maintenance from the estate of her father-in-law, before the Family Court under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956¹[Hereinafter referred to as “the Act”]. The petition was dismissed by the Family Court as not maintainable as Respondent no.1 was not a widow on the date of death of Dr. Mahindra Prasad, since her husband, Ranjit Sharma was alive at the time of his father’s demise. The High Court, in appeal, set aside the order of the Family Court recording a categorical finding that the petition was maintainable as Respondent no.1 was the widow of one of the sons of late Dr. Mahindra Prasad and as such was a dependant. Accordingly, the High Court directed the Family Court to consider the matter on merit and to decide about the quantum of maintenance.

5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of the High Court dated 20.08.2025, the appellant-Smt. Kanchana Rai, the wife of late Devinder Rai, the pre-deceased son of late Dr. Mahindra Prasad, has preferred one of these appeals on the issue of maintainability of the maintenance petition filed by the Respondent No.1

6. The other appeal has been preferred by one Smt. Uma Devi, the alleged partner of late Dr. Mahindra Prasad, contending that she was in a live-in relationship with him over the last forty years and that Respondent No. 1 had no legal right for seeking maintenance from the estate of late Dr. Mahendra Prasad.

7. In these facts and circumstances, a short and simple question, which has been made intricate by legal engineering of the legal minds, arising in these appeals is: whether a daughter-in-law, who becomes a widow after the death of her father-in-law, is a dependant upon the estate of the father- in-law, and entitled to claim maintenance from his estate.

8. Since the issue which is falling for our consideration is purely legal in nature, we intend to proceed and decide it on our own thinking and reasoning on the simple interpretation of the provisions of the Act, independent of the view taken by either of the courts below i.e. the Family Court and the High Court or on the basis of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which is completely alien for the purposes of any interpretation of the provisions of the present Act.

9. The law on the grant of maintenance of Hindus has been codified by enacting the Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act, 1956. The aforesaid Act provides for the adoption as well for the maintenance. The adoption part is dealt under Chapter II of the Act, whereas Chapter III of the Act provides for maintenance to the dependants of a Hindu under Sections 18 to 28.

10. The “dependants” have been defined under Section 21 of the Act inter alia to include the following relatives of the deceased.

2 (vii). any widow of his son or of a son of his predeceased son, so long as she does not remarry: provided and to the extent that she is unable to obtain maintenance from her husband’s estate. or from her son or daughter, if any, or his or her estate; or in the case of a grandson’s widow, also from her father- in-law’s es

Click Here to Read the rest of this document