Father-In-Law Not Liable To Pay Maintenance To Widowed Daughter-in-Law As Per Muslim Law: Madhya Pradesh HC
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that a father-in-law is not fastened any liability to pay maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act (DV Act) to his daughter-in-law after the death of his son as per the Mahomedan/ Muslim Law.
The Court was considering a Criminal Revision Petition filed by the father-in-law against maintenance order issue by the Trial Court at the instance of his daughter-in-law's application under the Domestic Violence Act.
The single-bench of Justice Hirdesh Roy held, "In the present case, it is not in dispute that respondent is the widow of petitioner's son and according to Mahomedan Law cited above, the father of widow's husband is not compelled to maintain her. The Calcutta High Court has specifically in the case of Shabnam Parveen (supra) observed that as per DV Act, the father-in-law of the son's widow is not bound to give maintenance to her. As per the provisions of Muslim law and the DV Act, in the considered opinion of this Court, the present petitioner being father-in-law of respondent, cannot be compelled to give maintenance to the respondent."
The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Akshat Kumar Jain while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Romesh Pratap Singh.
After the son of the Petitioner, who belongs to the Muslim community died, his daughter-in-law filed an application under Sections 18 to 22 of the DV Act before the trial Court demanding maintenance of Rs.40,000/-per month to meet out her day-to-day needs. Thereafter, Petitioner filed his reply denying the facts mentioned in the application and prayed for rejection of the same. However, the Trial Court allowed the same and passed an order holding him liable to pay Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance. An appeal under Section 29 of the DV Act before Sessions Court against the same was dismissed.
Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Respondent was living separately when her husband was alive and as per Mahomedan Law, being father-in-law, he is not entitled to part his money to pay as maintenance to the Respondent. He placed reliance on Mulla Principles of Mahomedan Law and took exception to Page No.457 and 458 of Chapter XIX Maintenance of Relatives and Maintenance of Other Relations in Rule 373 wherein it has been mentioned that a father is not bound to maintain his son's widow. He also cited the Division Bench's decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Mahomed Abdul Aziz Hidayat Vs. Khairunnissa Abdul Gani AIR 1950 Bom 145, in which it has been held that the father cannot be compelled to maintain the wife of his son. He further placed reliance on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Shabnam Parveen Vs. State of West Bengal & others, (2018).
The Court analyzed the moot question to be as to "whether petitioner as father-in-law is being fastened his liability to pay maintenance to his daughter-in-law because of death of his son or not?"
The Court accepted the submission of the Counsel for the Petitioner and observed that the trial Court as well as the Sessions Court has committed an error in granting maintenance in favour of the Respondent.
The petition was accordingly allowed.
Cause Title: Bashir Khan vs. Ishrat Bano2024:MPHC-GWL:18793
Click here to read/ download order
