Who pays when a widowed daughter-in-law seeks maintenance? SC answers

Supreme Court clarifies when heirs must support widowed daughter-in laws

A recent judgment by the Supreme Court of India has quietly but decisively reshaped how family wealth, inheritance, and responsibility intersect under Hindu personal law. In a ruling delivered in January 2026, the apex court clarified that a widowed daughter-in-law is entitled to claim maintenance from her deceased father-in-law’s estate—even if she became a widow after his death.

 

By declaring the timing of the son’s death “immaterial,” the judgment redraws the boundaries of dependency, forcing heirs to confront an uncomfortable truth: inheritance is not merely a transfer of assets, but a transfer of obligation. 

 

What the case is all about: 

 

 

The Supreme Court of India has clarified that a Hindu daughter-in-law who becomes a widow after the death of her father-in-law is still legally entitled to claim maintenance from his estate under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.

 

This legal question arose from a family dispute involving the estate of Dr. Mahendra Prasad, who died in December 2021, leaving behind multiple heirs. One of his sons, Ranjit Sharma, passed away in March 2023, after which his wife, Geeta Sharma, became a widow and filed for maintenance from her father-in-law’s estate.

 

The lower Family Court rejected her petition on the technical basis that she was not a widow at the time of her father-in-law’s death — a reasoning that treated the timing of widowhood as decisive. Her claim was later upheld by the High Court, which found that she qualified as a “dependent” and deserved a hearing on the merits. This order was challenged before the Supreme Court by other family members.

 

At the heart of the dispute was the interpretation of Section 21(vii) of the Act, which defines “dependants” to include “any widow of his son”. The appellants argued that this phrase should only refer to widows whose husbands died before the father-in-law, effectively excluding women like Geeta Sharma who became widows after his death.

 

In its judgment, the Supreme Court firmly rejected that reading, holding that the statutory phrase does not contain any qualifying words like “pre-deceased” and must be understood in its natural meaning. As a result, the timing of the husband’s death is irrelevant for determining entitlement to maintenance.

 

The court emphasised that since the Act refers to “any widow of his son,” it does not distinguish between cases where a daughter-in-law became a widow before or after her father-in-law’s death. It also observed that adding a temporal condition would be arbitrary and contrary to the law’s spirit of providing financial support to dependants who cannot maintain themselves.

 

Under Section 22, the court explained, all heirs who inherit the estate of a deceased Hindu are obliged to maintain dependants from the estate, and this obligation extends to widowed daughters-in-law who meet the statutory criteria.

 

On that basis, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, held that the maintenance petition was maintainable, and directed that the Family Court should now determine the appropriate quantum of maintenance in accordance with the law. The appeals were dismissed.

 

" The Supreme Court has made it clear that the liability to maintain a widowed daughter-in-law does not stop with the son alone but travels with the estate itself, meaning every legal heir who inherits the father-in-law’s property can be called upon to contribute proportionately, because the obligation under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act is estate-centric rather than person-centric, as reaffirmed by the Supreme Court of India. 

 

The widow’s right is not automatic in quantum but is conditional on need: she must demonstrate that she is unable to maintain herself from her own income, property, employment or other legally enforceable sources, typically through affidavits, income disclosures, bank statements and proof of absence of sufficient assets. Maintenance will not be a flat or symbolic amount; courts will necessarily calibrate it by looking at the size and nature of the inherited estate, the share taken by each heir, the standard of living of the deceased, and the competing claims of other dependants, ensuring that the burden is fair and proportionate rather than punitive," said Raheel Patel, Partner, Gandhi Law Associates.

 

Business Standard spoke to legal experts to understand the implications of this ruling: 

 

Who is liable to pay maintenance following this judgment — only sons, or all legal heirs who inherit the estate?

 

"The liability to pay maintenance is not confined to sons. Under Section 22 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, the obligation extends to all legal heirs who inherit the estate of the deceased Hindu, whether by intestate succession or under a will. The statute clearly provides that every heir is bound, in proportion to the share inherited, to maintain the dependents out of the estate received.

 

The judgment reaffirms that the expression “heirs of the deceased Hindu” is inclusive and covers sons, daughters, widows, or any other successors who take a share in the estate. Maintenance is thus a collective statutory burden on the estate, apportioned among heirs according to their respective inheritances. This interpretation ensures that dependants—such as widowed daughters-in-law—are not left to remedy less merely because the estate has devolved upon multiple heirs or non-male successors," said Alay Razvi, Managing Partner, Accord Juris.

 

Does the widow’s right to maintenance depend on her financial condition, and what proof is required to establish her inability to maintain herself?

 

The right of a widowed daughter-in-law (as a dependent under Section 21(vii) of the Act) is conditional upon her inability to maintain herself. Section 21(vii) defines a dependant to include a 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, explained  Priya Gada, Advocate D. M. Harish & Co. 

 

The claimant must demonstrate, through cogent evidence, that she lacks sufficient means from:

a. Her own earnings or property;

b. The estate of her deceased husband;

c. Any estate of her son or daughter (if applicable); or

d. Other sources of income.

 

Courts assess this on a case-by-case basis, often requiring affidavits, income statements, bank records, or property details to substantiate the claim of destitution or insufficient means. Remarriage extinguishes the right.

 

"To qualify for a claim against her father-in-law’s estate, she must demonstrate a lack of sufficient means from these primary sources, which may, inter alia, be assessed from the mandatory ‘Affidavit of Assets and Liabilities’ that is filed along with the Petition seeking maintenance. The onus rests on the widow to establish her destitute financial condition; however, the judgment does not prescribe the exact evidentiary standards for proving this incapacity, leaving procedural details to the Family Court and discretion during the merit hearing phase," said Prerna Robin, Principal Associate, B. Shanker Advocates.

 

How do courts determine the quantum of maintenance — does it depend on the size of the inherited estate or the number of dependants?

 

As per Gada, the amount of maintenance is determined under Section 23 of the Act, which provides guiding principles for both dependants (Section 23(3)) and certain claimants like wives, children, or parents (Section 23(2)).

- For dependants under Chapter III (including widowed daughters-in-law), Section 23(3) mandates regard to the following factors:

a. The net value of the deceased’s estate after providing for prior claims;

b. Any provision made under a will (if applicable);

c. The degree of relationship between the dependant and the deceased;

d. The reasonable wants/needs of the dependant;

e. The past relations between the dependant and the deceased

f. The value of the dependant’s own property and income derived

therefrom;

g. The number of dependants entitled to maintenance under the Act.

 

While the size of the inherited estate is a key consideration (as the obligation is limited to the estate inherited), courts also weigh the number of dependants, the claimant’s justified needs, and proportionality among heirs. The quantum is discretionary but must be reasonable and equitable.

 

In simple terms, the Supreme Court has clarified who decides the amount of maintenance and how, without fixing a formula itself. The judgment points to Section 23 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act as the guiding framework for calculating maintenance, leaving the actual amount to be determined by the Family Court based on facts. This means courts must take a balanced view, weighing the size and value of the inherited estate against the financial needs of the dependant and the number of other dependants entitled to support from the same estate. Factors such as the social and financial status of both sides, the claimant’s reasonable living requirements, and what the heirs have inherited are all considered. The objective is not to punish heirs or exhaust the estate, but to ensure the dependant receives fair and dignified support, proportionate to the estate’s capacity and circumstances. 

 

Does this ruling apply retrospectively to pending or prior family disputes under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act?

 

As Gada explains: Supreme Court in Kanchana Rai v. Geeta Sharma (January 2026) did not create a new legal right. Instead, it clarified how an existing law from 1956 should be understood and applied. Because of this, the ruling applies to all cases that are currently pending before courts where similar issues arise, and widowed daughters-in-law can rely on this interpretation in ongoing maintenance claims.

 

Since the Court did not place any restriction on how the ruling should be applied, lower courts are expected to follow it in all undecided cases under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. However, cases that were already finally decided before this judgment will usually not be reopened, unless a legal remedy like a review or appeal is still available under procedural law.

 

In short: the ruling will guide current and future maintenance cases, especially where the timing of widowhood was earlier used to deny a claim.

 

Key takeaways: 

•  Widowed daughters-in-law can claim maintenance even if widowhood occurs after father-in-law’s death
•  Timing of the son’s death is legally irrelevant
• All heirs who inherit the estate share maintenance liability proportionately
• Maintenance is conditional on financial need—not automatic entitlement
• Amount depends on estate size, claimant’s needs, and number of dependants
•  Ruling applies to pending and future cases, not concluded ones