The Gwalior Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court reiterated that under Muslim law, the father-in-law is not bound to provide financial support to the widow of his deceased son.

In doing so, the high court set aside the judgments of the trial court and the sessions courts, which had ordered the petitioner father-in-law to pay monthly maintenance to his daughter-in-law after the death of his son.

A single bench of judges Justice Hirdesh said, “IIn the instant case, it is not disputed that the respondent is the widow of the petitioner’s son and, according to the Mahomedan Law quoted above, the widow’s husband’s father is not bound to maintain her. The Calcutta High Court particularly observed in Shabnam Parveen’s case (supra) that under the DV Act the father-in-law of the son’s widow is not bound to give him maintenance.“.

The High Court referred to the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Shabnam Parveen Vs. State of West Bengal and otherswhich held that under Muslim personal law the father-in-law is under no obligation to grant maintenance to his son’s widow.

The high court later said: “In accordance with the provisions of the Muslim law and the DV Law, in the opinion of the Court, the present petitioner being the father-in-law of the respondent, cannot be obliged to grant maintenance to the respondent..”

The respondent who is the widow of the petitioner’s son, sought maintenance from the petitioner for her and her two children after the death of her husband. The respondent sought maintenance under Sections 18 to 22 of the Family Violence Act. The First Class Magistrate awarded him a maintenance of Rs. 3000 per month and was also upheld by the First Additional Sessions Judge. The petitioner-in-law challenged these orders before the high court, stating that under the Muslim Personal Law, he was under no financial obligation to maintain his daughter-in-law.

In support of his argument, counsel for the petitioner referred to the Mulla Principles of Mahomedan Law, Chapter XIX Maintenance of Relatives and Maintenance of Other Relations and also cited the decision of the Bombay High Court in Mohammed Abdul Aziz Hidayat Vs. Khairunnissa Abdul Gani (1950) which held that a father cannot be compelled to maintain his deceased son’s wife.

The high court observed that the trial court and the sessions court had committed an error in awarding maintenance to the widow daughter-in-law.

“In view of the above discussions as well as the jurisprudence, it is clear that the trial court as well as the Sessions Court committed an error in awarding the maintenance in favor of the respondent. Therefore, the order dated 21.01.2022 pronounced by the additional first session judge, Shivpuri (MP) in Criminal Appeal no. 25/2021 and the order dated 09.02.2021 pronounced in MJCR no. 1200291/2015 by the Magistrate of First Class Shivpuri, I’m here put it aside,” it was said.

Case Title: Bashir Khan vs. Ishrat Bano

Case no: CRR-458-2022

Click here to read/download the order