Summary of this article
Jharkhand High Court upholds Rs 17,000 monthly maintenance order.
Father-in-law's age does not cancel his statutory maintenance duty.
Widowed daughter-in-law and two minor grandsons receive court-ordered support.
An elderly man's responsibility towards his widowed daughter-in-law and grandchildren cannot be brushed aside merely because he is facing age-related difficulties, the Jharkhand High Court has observed. The court has upheld a direction requiring Roshan Lal Saw, aged around 84, to pay a total of Rs 17,000 every month to his daughter-in-law and two minor grandsons.
The ruling came in an appeal against a Dhanbad Family Court order passed under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. The High Court found that the amount awarded to the three dependants was justified by the family's financial circumstances.
Widow Claims She Has No Independent Source Of Income
Nilam Kumari moved the Family Court to seek financial assistance for herself and her two children, after her husband, Suraj Kumar, passed away on October 27, 2020.
In her application, Nilam had stated that she did not have any earnings, and that she had not been entitled to any share in her husband's estate. She also expressed worries about not being able to afford the cost of her kids' schooling without financial support from her father-in-law.
She demanded Rs 75,000 as monthly maintenance. Her claim was based partly on Roshan Lal's financial position. She alleged that he received a pension of more than Rs 32,000 a month and had fixed deposits exceeding Rs 80 lakh.
Roshan Lal disputed the claims about his assets. He pointed out that he was over 83 and his wife was over 80. According to him, his wife depended on him, while his health problems made it difficult to use agricultural and ancestral properties for income. He also claimed that his retirement savings had been used to build a house and that he was already bearing his grandchildren's education costs.
Court Reviews Rights Under Hindu Maintenance Law
The Family Court awarded Nilam Rs 7,000 per month and fixed Rs 5,000 each for her two sons until they attained the age of 18.
Roshan challenged the decision, stating his personal circumstances and financial responsibilities. The High Court then analysed the related provisions of Sections 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. These provisions address the maintenance obligations towards widowed daughters-in-law, children and dependants.
The court observed that a widow without an independent livelihood could claim maintenance under the law. It also accounted for the financial dependence of the two grandchildren while examining the father's obligation.
Pension And Rent Income Weigh Against Father's Plea
The High Court took note of Roshan Lal's pension of over Rs 32,000 per month. It also took into account a rental agreement which indicated that he was receiving a monthly rent exceeding Rs 18,000 from a property in his wife's name.
This meant the total monthly earnings of the couple were more than Rs 50,000. The court found that paying Rs 17,000 towards the maintenance of three dependants was not unreasonable. It refused Roshan Lal's plea, stating that he should be excused for his old age. The appeal was rejected, and the Family Court's maintenance order remained in effect.
