Father-in-law is legally obligated to maintain widowed daughter-in-law and grandchild from joint family estate.

The Appellant (father-in-law) challenged a Family Court order dated 17.07.2025, which granted monthly maintenance of ₹1,000 to Respondent No. 1 (widowed daughter-in-law) and ₹500 to Respondent No. 2 (minor granddaughter).

Respondent No. 1’s husband died in 2017, after which she alleged harassment and expulsion from the matrimonial home by the Appellant.

The Respondents filed for maintenance under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act (HAMA), 1956, alleging the Appellant managed 5 acres of joint family property yielding ₹5 lakh annually.

The Appellant denied these claims, asserting the Respondent left voluntarily to seek a compassionate appointment and that he had no ancestral property.

Notably, the Appellant chose not to testify or enter the witness box during the trial.

1. Whether a father-in-law is legally obligated to maintain his widowed daughter-in-law and her child from joint family property under the HAMA, 1956.

2. Whether an adverse inference should be drawn against a defendant who abstains from entering the witness box to prove his defense.

The Court applied Section 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, which entitles a widowed daughter-in-law to maintenance from her father-in-law to the extent she cannot maintain herself and provided the father-in-law has means from coparcenary property.

It relied on the Supreme Court precedent *Vidyadhar v. Manikrao* (1999), establishing that a party’s failure to testify creates a presumption that their case is incorrect.

Furthermore, it cited *Kanchana Rai v. Geeta Sharma* (2026), which affirmed the "pious obligation" of a father-in-law to maintain a widowed daughter-in-law to ensure her right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The High Court observed that the relationship between the parties was undisputed.

Applying the principle from *Vidyadhar*, the Court drew an adverse inference against the Appellant because he refused to cross-examine the Respondents or offer himself as a witness, rendering his denials regarding income and property unsubstantiated.

The Court found that Respondent No. 1 had successfully proven her destitution and the Appellant’s possession of family property.

Integrating the Supreme Court’s reasoning in *Kanchana Rai*, the Court emphasized that Section 19 is a social justice provision intended to prevent destitution.

The Court held that since the Respondent could not maintain herself from her husband’s estate or her parents, the statutory obligation shifted to the father-in-law who held the family estate.

It held that the Appellant is legally bound to maintain the Respondents as they are the widow and child of his deceased son.

The maintenance amounts of ₹1,000 and ₹500 were deemed appropriate given the evidence of the Appellant's agricultural income and his failure to rebut the claims in the witness box.