Muslim Father-in-Law Not Obligated to Maintain Son's Widow Under DV Act: MP High Court - 2024-10-24

Latest Legal Developments.

MP High Court: Muslim Father -in-Law Not Liable for Daughter-in-Law's Maintenance Under DV Act

Shivpuri, Madhya Pradesh: The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently ruled that a Muslim father-in-law cannot be compelled to pay maintenance to his deceased son's widow under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), especially when Mahomedan Law does not impose such an obligation. The Court set aside the concurrent findings of the trial court and the appellate court which had ordered the father-in-law to pay monthly maintenance.

Case Background

The respondent (daughter-in-law) married the petitioner's (father-in-law) son, Sarif Khan , on June 14, 2011, and they had two daughters. Following Sarif Khan 's death on June 30, 2015, the respondent filed an application under Section 12 of the DV Act against her father-in-law and other in-laws, seeking maintenance of Rs. 40,000 per month.

Lower Court Decisions

The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shivpuri, after considering evidence from both parties, allowed the application in part on February 9, 2021 (MJCR No.1200291/2015), directing the petitioner (father-in-law) to pay Rs. 3,000 per month as maintenance to the respondent.

The petitioner challenged this order before the Sessions Court, Shivpuri. The First Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal (Criminal Appeal No.25/2021) on January 21, 2022, confirming the trial court's maintenance order. Aggrieved by these decisions, the father-in-law filed the present Criminal Revision petition before the High Court.

Arguments Before the High Court

The petitioner's counsel argued that the lower courts' orders were contrary to law. Key submissions included: * The respondent is the widow of his son. * Under Mahomedan Law, specifically citing Mulla's Principles (Rule 373), a father is not bound to maintain his son's widow. * Reliance was placed on Mahomed Abdul Aziz Hidayat Vs. Khairunnissa Abdul Gani (AIR 1950 Bom 145) , holding that a father cannot be compelled to maintain his son's wife. * The decision in Shabnam Parveen Vs. State of West Bengal & others (AIR 2018 Cal 57) was highlighted, where the Calcutta High Court held that under Mahomedan Law, a father-in-law has no obligation to provide maintenance to his son's widow, and Section 36 of the DV Act (stating the Act is in addition to, not in derogation of, other laws) does not override this personal law principle in such cases.

The respondent's counsel supported the impugned orders of the lower courts and prayed for the dismissal of the revision petition.

High Court's Analysis and Ruling

The High Court framed the central question: "whether petitioner as father-in-law is being fastened his liability to pay maintenance to his daughter-in-law because of death of his son or not ?"

The Court noted the undisputed fact that the respondent is the widow of the petitioner's son. It explicitly acknowledged the principle under Mahomedan Law, as cited by the petitioner, that a father-in-law is not obligated to maintain his deceased son's widow.

Crucially, the Court referred to the Calcutta High Court's decision in Shabnam Parveen (supra) , which specifically dealt with the interplay between Mahomedan Law and the DV Act on this issue. The High Court concurred with the view that the DV Act does not compel a Muslim father-in-law to maintain his daughter-in-law, contrary to their personal law.

The Court stated:

"As per the provisions of Muslim law and the DV Act, in the considered opinion of this Court, the present petitioner being father-inlaw of respondent, cannot be compelled to give maintenance to the respondent."

Concluding that both the trial court and the Sessions Court had erred in granting maintenance, the High Court found their orders unsustainable.

Final Decision

The Madhya Pradesh High Court allowed the Criminal Revision petition. Consequently, the order dated 21.01.2022 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri, and the order dated 09.02.2021 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shivpuri, were set aside. The father-in-law is no longer obligated to pay maintenance to the respondent under the DV Act based on this ruling.