NARAYAN UIKE vs SMT GUNJA UIKE

1
2026:CGHC:10470-DB


2026:CGHC:10470-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
FA(MAT) No. 322 of 2025
1 - Narayan Uike S/o Kartik Uike Aged About 60 Years R/o Baihatola,
P.S. And Tahsil- Khairagarh, District : Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai,
Chhattisgarh
... Appellant(s)
versus
1 - Smt Gunja Uike W/o Late Pradeep Uike Aged About 28 Years Caste-
Mahar, R/o House No. 413, Ward No. 33, Kanharpuri, Rajnandgaon,
Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
2 - Minor Purvi Uike D/o Late Pradeep Uike Aged About 7 Years
Through Guardian Mother Smt. Gunja Uike, W/o Late Pradeep Uike,
R/o House No. 413, Ward No. 33, Kanharpuri, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And
District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Ms. Priyanka Rai, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
28/02/2026

2
2026:CGHC:10470-DB
1. The instant appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act,
1984, has been filed by the appellant against the impugned judgment
and decree dated 17.07.2025 passed by the learned Family Court,
Rajnandgaon, in Civil Suit No. 131-A/2024, whereby the application filed
by the respondents under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoption and
Maintenance Act, 1956, was partly allowed, and an amount of Rs.
1,000/- in favor of the present respondent No. 1 and Rs. 500/- in favor
of respondent No. 2 was granted as maintenance from the date of filing
of the application.
2.
For the sake of convenience, the status of the parties as shown in
the said civil suit shall be referred to in the present appeal.
3.
The present appellant is the defendants in the civil suit, and the
present respondents were the plaintiffs. The defendant is the father-in-
law of plaintiff No. 1. The husband of plaintiff No. 1, father of plaintiff No.
2, and son of the defendant, namely Pradeep Uikey, expired on
10.01.2017. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute.
4. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the son
of the defendant and plaintiff No. 1 was solemnized in the year 2015.
During the marriage, plaintiff No. 1 conceived, but unfortunately, her
husband died on 10.01.2017. After the death of her husband, she gave
birth to plaintiff No. 2. After the death of the husband of the plaintiff
No.1, the defendant allegedly began harassing her and teasing her for
giving birth to a female child. It is also alleged in the plaint that the
defendant was having evil eye upon the plaintiff No. 1, his behavior

3
2026:CGHC:10470-DB
deteriorated toward the plaintiffs, and ultimately they were thrown out by
the defendant from their matrimonial house. They have no source of
their livelihood and they started residing with the parents of the plaintiff
No. 1. The plaintiffs filed an application under Section 19 of the Hindu
Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, for grant of monthly maintenance
of Rs. 32,000/- from the defendant, as the defendant possessed the
joint family property property and earned from it. It was pleaded that the
defendant owned 5 acres of agricultural land, from which he was earing
Rs. 5 lakh per year. There is no source of income of the plaintiffs,
therefore, the maintenance amount should be granted in their favour.
5. The defendant denied the plaintiffs’ claim and contended that
plaintiff No. 1 had performed a love marriage with his son, therefore,
there was no reason to demand dowry from her. He has never treated
her with cruelty during the life time his son or even after the death. The
plaintiff No. 1 in order to obtain compassionate appointment left her
matrimonial house and started residing with her parents. All allegations
of harassment, teasing, or “evil eye” were false and baseless. The
defendant is ready to keept her with her matrimonial house but due to
adamant attitude of the plaintiff No.1 she is residing with her parents.
He also denied with the family property and any income from it.
6. The learned trial court framed issues and proceeded for recording
evidence of the parties. The plaintiff examined herself as PW-1, but the
defendant has choosen not to examine himself and made a statement
to that effect on 25.02.2025, therfore, the right to evidence of the

4
2026:CGHC:10470-DB
defendant was disclosed.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned
Family Court has erred in law and on facts in passing the impugned
judgment by ignoring material evidence and proceeding on mere
presumptions regarding alleged ancestral property, without any
exhibited or proved document. The Court failed to consider that the
appellant is an aged person with the responsibility of maintaining his
wife, unmarried children, and aged parents, and overlooked the
mandatory requirements of Section 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and
Maintenance Act, 1956, which limit the liability of a father-in-law. The
respondent’s own admissions in cross-examination regarding property
in her family’s name and her unwillingness to reside in the matrimonial
home were disregarded. As neither the appellant’s income nor the
respondent’s actual needs were proved, the impugned judgment is
unsustainable and liable to be set aside.
8. The plaintiff No.1 stated in her evidence as per the pleadings
made by her in the application and reiterated that she was dependent
upon her husband and after death of her husband she became helpless
and in starvation. The defendant who is her father-in-law having income
of about Rs. 5 lakh per year from the agricultural land belongs to the
family and she being the legal heir of her husband, having share over
the family property which is in possession of the defendant, therefore,
the maintenance amount should be awarded to her.
9. In cross-examination she stated that her brother given her the

5
2026:CGHC:10470-DB
grossary items. She further stated that after birth of the plaintiff No.2,
her in-laws have thrown her from her matrimonial house and then her
parents have taken her back. She further stated that she tried to go
there at her matrimonial house many times but her in-laws have not
permitted to enter into the house. She further stated that though she
made an application for compassionate appointment in the department
of her husband but she did not know as to why the compassionate
appointment have not been provided to her. When she asked from the
department, she came to know that an amount of Rs. 50,000/- was
given to the defendant for final rituals of her husband. Though she
admitted that she has not made any police complaint against the act of
the defendant but in the opinion of this Court that itself is not sufficient
to disallow the maintenance amount to the plaintiffs.
10. It is notably here that the defendant has not examined himself in
support of his defence. Non examination of the defendant gives adverse
presumption against him as has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Vidyadhar vs. Manikrao and Another 1999 (3) SCC 573,
has held:
“ 17 . Where a party to the suit does not appear in the
witness-box and h states his own case on oath and
does not offer himself to be cross-examined by the
other side, a presumption would arise that the case
set up by him is not correct as has been held in a
series of decisions passed by various High Courts
and the Privy Council beginning from the decision in
Sardar Gurbakhsh Singh v. Gurdial Singh. This was

6
2026:CGHC:10470-DB
followed by the Lahore High a Court in Kirpa Singh
v. Ajaipal Singh and the Bombay High Court in
Martand Pandharinath Chaudhari v. Radhabai
Krishnarao Deshmukh'. The Madhya Pradesh High
Court in Gulla Kharagjit Carpenter v. Narsingh
Nandkishore Rawar also followed the Privy Council
decision in Sardar Gurbakhsh Singh case. The
Allahabad High Court in Arjun Singh v Virendra Nath
held that if a party abstains from entering the
witness-box, it b would give rise to an adverse
inference against him. Similarly, a Division Bench of
the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Bhagwan
Dass v. Bhishan Chand drew a presumption under
Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872 against a
party who did not enter the witness-box.”
11. From the entire evidence led by the plaintiffs, we are of the
considered opinion that the learned family Court has rightly considered
the evidence and the liability upon the defendant to maintain the
plaintiffs who are the wife and child of the son of the defendant,
therefore, the defendant is bound to maintain the plaintiffs. ( See: Sri.
Raja Bommadevara Raja Lakshmi Devi Amma Garu v. Sr. Raja B.
Naganna Naidu Bahadur Zamindar Garu and Bhagwan Singh v. Mt.
Kawal Kaur ).
12. In order to ensure the maintenance to the daughter-in-law, Section
19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (henceforth 'the
Act, 1956') would be relevant, which is quoted below:
19. Maintenance of widowed daughter-in-law. -(1) A Hindu wife,
whether married before or after the commencement of this Act,

7
2026:CGHC:10470-DB
shall be entitled to be maintained after the death of her husband
by her father-in-law:
Provided and to the extent that she is unable to maintain herself
out of her own earnings or other property or, where she has no
property of her own, is unable to obtain maintenance-
(a) from the estate of her husband or her father or mother, or
(b) from her son or daughter, if any, or his or her estate.
(2) Any obligation under sub-section 1 shall not be enforceable if
the father-in-law has not the means to do so from any
coparcenary property in his possession out of which the daughter-
in-law has not obtained any share, and any such obligation shall
cease on the re-marriage of the daughter-in-law.
13. Recently, the issue came up before the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
and Their Lordships held in Kanchana Rai vs. Geeta Sharma and
Others , 2026 SCC OnLine SC 59 , decided on 13.01.2026, that:
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 l.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

8
2026:CGHC:10470-DB
Chapter IIIof 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 alla 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 estate;
11. A plain reading of the above definition of the
dependants makes it crystal clear that the relatives of
the deceased, namely, "any widow of his son" would be
a dependant provided she is unable to maintain herself
from her husband's estate or from her son or her
daughter's estate and in the case of grandson's widow,
from her father-in-law's estate.
12. Section 22 of the Act provides for the maintenance
of dependants and casts an obligation upon all the heirs
of the deceased Hindu to maintain the dependants of
the deceased out of the estate Inherited by them from
the deceased. In simpler words, all the heirs of the
deceased Hindu are obliged to maintain the dependants
of the deceased from the funds inherited out of the
estate of the deceased.
13. Sub-section (2) of Section 22 further provides that
where a dependant of the deceased Hindu has not
obtained share in the estate of the Hindu either by
testamentary or intestate- succession, such a

9
2026:CGHC:10470-DB
dependant shall be entitled to maintenance from those
who take the estate. Therefore, anyone succeeding to
the estate of the deceased Hindu is under an obligation
to maintain the dependant of the deceased.
14. Section 23 of the Act provides for the manner and
the factors on the basis of which maintenance to a
dependant has to be determined.
15. Section 21 of the Act, as stated earlier, is only a
defining section which defines the "dependants of the
deceased Hindu. One of the relatives of the deceased
Hindu who has been defined as a dependantIs clearly
"any widow of his son" meaning thereby a widow of the
deceased son of the Hindu is a dependant irrespective
of the time she becomes a widow.
16. The above definition is quite clear and
unambiguous. It is not open for any other meaning
except that a "widow of the son" of the deceased is a
dependant. In view of such a clear definition, it is not
open for anyone to Infer and assign any other meaning
to the said definition so as to say that only a widow of
the predeceased son of a Hindu would be covered by
the sald definition. The aforesald definition nowhere
uses the word "widow of a predeceased son". It simply
uses the words "any widow of a son". The legislature in
its wisdom has deliberately avoided to use the word
"predeceased" before the "son" so as to include any
widow of the son. The time of her becoming a widow or
the death of the son is Immaterial.
17. It is a cardinal principle of Interpretation of law that
where the provision is clear and unambiguous, it has to
be interpreted literally provided the literal Interpretation

10
2026:CGHC:10470-DB
is not in conflict with the purpose of the Act or is
otherwise not impractical.
18. This foundational principle of literal interpretation
finds unequivocal support in a consistent line of judicial
precedents.
19. In Crawford v. Spooner the Privy Council observed
that the construction of an Act must be taken from its
bare words, and it is not for the courts "to add, and
mend, and, by construction, make up deficiencies" left
by the legislature, nor to "fish out what possibly may
have been the intention" if not clearly expressed.
Judges must take the words as they are and give them
their natural meaning, unless controlled or altered by
the context or the preamble.
20. In B. Premanand v. Mohan Koikal this Court
emphasized that departure from the literal rule should
be an exception in very rare cases, as once courts
depart from the literal rule where the language is clear,
the result would be destructive of judicial discipline and
contrary to the constitutional scheme as the exclusive
domain to legislate is upon the legislature. The Court
aptly noted that "the literal rule of Interpretation simply
means that we mean what we say and we say what we
mean." The Court further cautioned that even if a literal
Interpretation results in hardship or inconvenience, the
same cannot be a ground to depart from the plain
meaning of the statutory text.
21. More recently, In Vinod Kumar v. DM, Mau this
Court reaffirmed that the literal rule is the first and
foremost principle of statutory Interpretation. Where the
words are absolutely clear and unambiguous, recourse

11
2026:CGHC:10470-DB
cannot be had to any other principle. The Court
explicitly held that "the language employed in a statute
is the determinative factor of the legislative intent" and
that judges cannot correct or make up a perceived
deficiency in the words used by the legislature. The
Court held that courts cannot correct or supply an
assumed omission in the statute, as the legislature is
presumed to have intended what it has expressly
stated.
22. In view of the language so used in Section 21 (vil) of
the Act and guided by the settled principles reiterated
above, there is hardly any scope to interpret that the
words "any widow of his son" used therein would mean
"widow of his predeceased son" only. The courtscannot
add or subtract any word from the text of the statute.
The provisions of the statute cannot be re-written by the
courts by assuming or inferring something which is not
implicit from the plain language of the statute.
23. Even otherwise, any such restrictive Interpretation
would fall the test of constitutional validity under Article
14 of the Constitution. The classification sought to be
made between widowed daughters-in-law based solely
on the timing of the husband's death, namely, (a) those
whose husbands died during the lifetime of the father-
in-law, and (b) those whose husbands died after him; is
manifestly unreasonable and arbitrary. Such a
classification bears no rational nexus with the object
and purpose of the Act, which is to secure maintenance
to dependants who are unable to maintain themselves.
In both situations, the women are similarly situated in so
far as the object of the Act is concerned, having
suffered widowhood, being without spousal support,

12
2026:CGHC:10470-DB
and facing comparable financial vulnerability. Denial of
maintenance to one category based on a fortuitous
circumstance beyond their control is manifestly arbitrary
and violative of the guarantee of equality before law
under Article 14 of the Constitution.
24. Any Interpretation contrary to one opined above,
would also infringe upon Article 21 of the Constitution,
which guarantees the right to life with dignity. The right
to life has been judicially expanded to Include the right
to livelihood and basic sustenance. Denying
maintenance to a widowed daughter-in-law from the
estate of her deceased father-in-law on a narrow or
technical construction of the statute would expose her
to destitution and social marginalization, thereby
offending her fundamental right to live with dignity. The
provisions of the Act must, therefore, be read
purposively and in conformity with constitutional values,
so as to advance social justice and protect the dignity of
vulnerable dependants rather than defeat it.
25. Section 4 of the Act has an overriding effect but it
does not erase away fundamental principles of Hindu
law particularly where some doubt is raised about the
codified provisions. The Hindu law specially Manu
Smriti vide Chapter 8, verse 389 says:
"
न माता न पिता न स्त्री न पुत्रस्त्यागमर्हति ।
"
त्यजन्नपतितानेतान राज्ञा दण्ड्यः शतानि षट ।।
No mother, no father, no wife, and no son deserves to
be forsaken. A person who abandons these blameless
(relatives) should be fined six hundred (units) by the
king. This verse emphasizes duty of the family head to
support female family members.

13
2026:CGHC:10470-DB
26. A son or the legal heirs are bound to maintain all the
dependant persons out of estate inherited 1.e. all
persons whom the deceased was legally and morally
bound to maintain. Therefore, on the death of son,It is
the plous obligation of the father-in-law to maintain
widowed daughter-in-law, if she is unable to maintain
herself either on her own or through the property left
behind by the deceased son. The Act does not envisage
to rule out the above obligation of the father-in-law to
maintain his widowed daughter-in-law, irrespective of
the fact when she became a widow whether prior or
after his death.
27. Though, it may not be very much in context to refer
to Section 19 of the Act but we consider it proper to
refer to it as the Courts below have considered and
dealt with it and some arguments on its basis have
been advanced before us.
28. Section 19 of the Act provides for the maintenance
of "widowed daughter-in-law" of the deceased Hindu. It
simply contemplates that a Hindu wife is entitled to be
maintained after the death of her husband by her father-
in-law. Thus, it casts an obligation upon the father-in-
law to maintain his daughter-in-law. The said obligation
subsists only during the lifetime of the father-in-law as
the aforesaid provision nowhere contemplates that the
daughter-in-law would be entitled to maintenance from
the estate of the father-in-law. In other words, Section
19 contemplates for the maintenance of the daughter-
in-law during the lifetime of father-in-law, whereas,
Section 22 contemplates "maintenance of dependants"
Including "widowed daughter-in-law" from the estate of
her father-in-law meaning thereby that a claim under

14
2026:CGHC:10470-DB
Section 22 can be raised only after the death of the
father-in-law.
29. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we
are clearly of the opinion that "any widow of the son" of
a deceased Hindu is a dependant within the meaning of
Section 21 (vii) of the Act and is entitled to claim
maintenance under Section 22 of the Act. Therefore, 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.
14.
In view of the evidence available on record as well as the law laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kanchana Rai
(Supra) of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court has rightly
considered the evidence and passed the appropriate judgment and
decree, which needs no interference.
15. Accordingly, the first appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed .
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Alok