LexKANCHANA RAI versus GEETA SHARMA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2026] 2 S.C.R. 191 : 2026 INSC 54 Kanchana Rai v. Geeta Sharma & Ors. (Civil Appeal No(s). 245-246 of 2026) 13 January 2026 [Pankaj Mithal* and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether a daughter-in-law, who becomes a widow after the death of her father-in-law, is a dependant upon the estate of the father- in-law, and entitled to claim maintenance from his estate. Headnotes† Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act, 1956 – Chapter III, ss.18 to 28 – Maintenance – Widow daughter-in-law – A daughter- in-law became widow after death of her father-in-law – She is dependent upon the estate of father-in-law – Whether she is entitled to claim maintenance from her father-in-law’s estate – Whether the words “any widow of his son” would mean “widow of his predeceased son” only: Held: In view of the language so used in s.21(vii) of the Act and guided by the settled principles, 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 courts cannot add or subtract any word from the text of the statute – Any such restrictive interpretation would fail the test of constitutional validity u/Art.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 – Any interpretation contrary to one opined above, would also infringe upon Art.21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life with dignity – 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 * Author 192 [2026] 2 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports 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 – 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 – s.19 of the Act simply contemplates that a Hindu wife is entitled to be maintained after the death of her husband by her father-in-law – Whereas, s.22 contemplates “maintenance of dependants” including “widowed daughter-in-law” from the estate of her father-in-law meaning thereby that a claim u/s.22 can be raised only after the death of the father-in-law – This Court is clearly of the opinion that “any widow of the son” of a deceased Hindu is a dependant within the meaning of s.21(vii) of the Act and is entitled to claim maintenance u/s.22 of the Act. [Paras 22, 23, 24, 26, 28, 29] Case Law Cited B. Premanand v. Mohan Koikal [2011] 3 SCR 932: (2011) 4 SCC 266; Vinod Kumar v. DM, Mau [2023] 10 SCR 387 : (2023) 19 SCC 126 – referred to. Crawford v. Spooner (1846) 4 Moo IA 179 – referred to. Books and Periodicals Cited Manu Smriti vide Chapter 8, verse 389. List of Acts Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956; Hindu Succession Act, 1956; Constitution of India. List of Keywords Literal interpretation; Widow daughter-in-law; Widow dependent on father-in-law; Estate of father-in-law; Maintenance; Section 19 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956; Section 22 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956; Maintenance of dependents; Article 14 of Constitution of India; Article 21 of Constitution. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s). 245-246 of 2026 [2026] 2 S.C.R. 193 Kanchana Rai v. Geeta Sharma & Ors. From the Judgment and Order dated 20.08.2025 and 26.08.2025 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in MATAPP (FC) No. 303 of 2024 and CMAPPL No. 52693 of 2025, respectively With Civil Appeal No. 247 of 2026 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant(s): Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, V. Giri, Arvind Nayyar, Sr. Advs., D. Abhinav Rao, B. Shravanth Shanker, Rahul Narang. Advs. for the Respondent(s): Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv., Varun Singh, Nitin Saluja, Ms. Deepeika Kalia, Ms. Alankriti Dwivedi, Ms. Somesa Gupta, Sudeep Chandra, Ms. Khushi. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Pank
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.