Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 – Ss. 19, 21(vii), 22 – Maintenance – Widow daughter-in-law – Whether widow of son who became widow after death of father-in-law is “dependant” – Claim from estate of deceased father-in-law – Literal interpretation – Constitutional conformity – Arts. 14 & 21 – Held: Yes, entitled. A. Maintenance – Widow daughter-in-law – Meaning of “any widow of his son” Paras 15, 16, 22, 29 Issue: Whether “any widow of his son” in S.21(vii) means only widow of a pre-deceased son (i.e., widow at the time of father-in-law’s death)? Held: Language of S.21(vii) is clear and unambiguous. Legislature deliberately used expression “any widow of his son” and not “widow of his predeceased son.” Courts cannot add or subtract words from statute. Timing of widowhood is immaterial. Thus, any widow of the son of a deceased Hindu is a dependant within S.21(vii).

advocatemmmohan

Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 – Ss. 19, 21(vii), 22 – Maintenance – Widow daughter-in-law – Whether widow of son who became widow after death of father-in-law is “dependant” – Claim from estate of deceased father-in-law – Literal interpretation – Constitutional conformity – Arts. 14 & 21 – Held: Yes, entitled.

---

A. Maintenance – Widow daughter-in-law – Meaning of “any widow of his son”

Paras 15, 16, 22, 29

Issue: Whether “any widow of his son” in S.21(vii) means only widow of a pre-deceased son (i.e., widow at the time of father-in-law’s death)?

Held:

1. Language of S.21(vii) is clear and unambiguous.

2. Legislature deliberately used expression “any widow of his son” and not “widow of his predeceased son.”

3. Courts cannot add or subtract words from statute.

4. Timing of widowhood is immaterial.

Thus, any widow of the son of a deceased Hindu is a dependant within S.21(vii).

---

B. Section 22 – Maintenance of dependants from estate

Paras 12, 13, 28, 29

Held:

(i) Under S.22, heirs inheriting estate of deceased Hindu are obliged to maintain his dependants.
(ii) If dependant has not received share in estate, she is entitled to maintenance from those who inherit it.
(iii) Claim under S.22 arises after death of father-in-law.

Therefore, widow daughter-in-law is entitled to claim maintenance from estate of deceased father-in-law.

---

C. Section 19 vs. Section 22 – Distinction

Paras 27, 28

Held:

• S.19: Maintenance of widowed daughter-in-law during lifetime of father-in-law.

• S.22: Maintenance of dependants (including widow daughter-in-law) from estate after death of father-in-law.

Thus, both provisions operate in distinct spheres and are not mutually exclusive.

---

D. Literal Rule of Interpretation – Application

Paras 17–21, 22

Court reiterated:

1. Where statutory language is clear, literal rule must apply.

2. Courts cannot supply omissions or rewrite statute.

3. Hardship cannot justify departure from plain text.

Reliance placed on:

• Crawford v. Spooner

• B. Premanand v. Mohan Koikal

• Vinod Kumar v. DM, Mau

---

E. Constitutional Dimensions – Arts. 14 & 21

Paras 23, 24

Held:

1. Restricting benefit only to widows whose husbands died during father-in-law’s lifetime creates arbitrary classification.

2. Such classification violates Article 14 (manifest arbitrariness).

3. Denial of maintenance would infringe Article 21 – right to live with dignity.

Provisions must be interpreted purposively to advance social justice and dignity of vulnerable dependants.

---

F. Hindu Law Principles – Moral Obligation

Para 26

Even under traditional Hindu law principles, legal heirs are bound to maintain dependants whom deceased was legally and morally obliged to maintain.

Statute does not negate such obligation.

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

1. Expression “any widow of his son” in Section 21(vii) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 includes every widow of the son of the deceased Hindu, irrespective of whether she became widow before or after father-in-law’s death.

2. Such widow is a “dependant” and entitled to claim maintenance under Section 22 from the estate of the deceased father-in-law.

3. Narrow interpretation limiting benefit to widow of pre-deceased son is impermissible, contrary to statutory text, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

---

RESULT

Appeals dismissed.
High Court’s order upheld.
Maintenance petition held maintainable.