Compensation to daughter-in-law
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 04 January 2012
This query is : Resolved
I am a senior citizen of 62 years of age staying with my wife, son, daughter in law and grandson. My son, after marriage, is suffering from paralysis and therefore earning irregular income i.e. sometime he works and when it becomes difficult he leaves the job.We are sustaining on my wife's and my pension and interest from Bank FDs and stay in a flat owened by me. Due to my son's irregular income and physical disability his wife wants divorce from him. Will I, as a father in law, have to pay alimoney/fin compensation to my daughter in law as my son has no money because of his irregular income. Please advise !
ajay sethi
(Expert) 04 January 2012
if wife wants divorce principal liability is of your son . the court will consider his financial position , amount he earns and accrodingly award maintenace .
you have not mentioned whether you are hindu or muslim .
under maohammedan law if son is poor , infirm unable to maintain himself then father has vicarious liablity to maintain son and his wife .
ajay sethi
(Expert) 04 January 2012
Mahomed Abdul Aziz Hidayat vs Khairunnissa Abdul Gani on 19 November, 1948
Equivalent citations: AIR 1950 Bom 245, (1950) 52 BOMLR 133
Author: Chagla
Bench: Chagla, Bhagwati
JUDGMENT
Chagla, C.J.
1. This appeal raises a very short question of Mahomedan law, and the question is whether there is any obligation in law upon a father-in-law to maintain the widow of his son. The learned trial Judge has awarded maintenance to the daughter-in-law more on grounds of humanity than on legal principles, and Mr. Walawalkar also has appealed to us to accept those humane considerations and not deprive the daughter-in-law of the very small maintenance, viz. Rs. 6, which the learned Judge has awarded her. But however liberal and humane the Court may be inclined to be, it can not step outside the well-established principles of law and it cannot itself make a new law for the parties.
2. The principles with regard to maintenance under Mahomedan law are fairly well settled, and the main principle is, as is to be found in Mulla's Mahomedan Law, p. 286 and Mulla relies upon the statement of law in Baillie's Digest of Mahomedan Law at p. 467, that a person is liable to maintain another when that person could be the heir of the person whom he is called upon to maintain. In this case the father in law could never be the heir of his daughter in law, and therefore on that principle there is no obligation on the father in law to maintain the widow of his son. Mr. Walawalkar has relied strongly on a passage in Tyabji on Mahomedan Law at p. 339, and that passage is based on another statement of law in Baillie's Digest, and that statement is:
"It is also incumbent upon a father to maintain his son's wife when the son is young, poor or infirm. It is stated however in the Mubsool that a father cannot be compelled to maintain the wife of his son."
Mr. Walawalkar wants us to extend the liability of the father-in-law from maintaining the wife of his son to maintaining the widow of his son. The liability of a father-in-law to maintain his daughter in law, so long as the son is alive, can be explained on the basic principles of Mahomedan law, because a father is liable to maintain his son, and, as the statement of the law states, his liability to maintain his wife only arises when the son is young, poor or infirm. Therefore, as the son cannot maintain his own wife and as the father is liable to maintain his son, a sort of vicarious liability is cast upon the father-in-law. But on the death of the son naturally, the marriage between him and his wife is dissolved, the daughter-in-law becomes a complete stranger to the father-in-law. Under Mahomedan law, she is entitled to remarry, and therefore it would be contrary to the well-established principles of Mahomedan law to impose a liability upon the father-in-law to maintain the widow of his son.
3. However reluctantly and realising the great hardship in this particular case, we must come to the conclusion that the learned trial Judge was wrong in imposing this liability upon the appellant. The result is that the appeal is allowed, and the decree of the trial Court set aside. No order as to costs throughout.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 04 January 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SUBJECT: SEC.18 OF THE HINDU ADOPTIONS AND MAINTENANCE ACT
Suit No. 1225 of 2003
Date of decision: November 16th, 2004
Ms Radhika Narang & Ors. ..... Plaintiffs
Through
Mr. Y.P. Narula, Sr Adv,
with
Ms. Kirti Singh, Mr. Sanjay
Ghose, Advocates.
Versus
Mr. Karun Raj Narang & Ors.. ..... Defendants
Reading of Section
18 and 19 of Hindu Adoption and Miantenace ACT indicates that at first instance, it is the husband who is
under legal obligation to maintain his wife of course subject to
exceptions as provided in Clause 2 of Section 18 and after the death
of her husband her father-in-law shall maintain her not in absolute
terms but subject to the condition that she is unable to maintain
herself out of her own earnings or other properties. That goes to
show that even after the death of her husband firstly she has to
maintain herself out of her own earnings from the property and if
she is not able to do that only then her father-in-law's obligation
starts. If that is the spirit of these two provisions how can father-
in-law at the first instance be asked to maintain his daughter-in-
law when the husband is alive.
9. To sum up provisions of Sections 18 and 19 of the
Act are so plain, clear and unambiguous that literal meaning as
provided in these two provisions are to be given as described plainly
in the two provisions
Deepak Nair
(Expert) 04 January 2012
Rightly advised by Mr.Sethi above.
In your case, you won't be asked to pay any maintenance to your daughter in law.
M/s. Y-not legal services
(Expert) 04 January 2012
no., you need not pay any compensation to your daughter in law..
you did not state anything about her financial sources.,
tom..
V R SHROFF
(Expert) 05 January 2012
Rightly Guided by Mr.Ajay Sethi
Only sec 19 & 21(vi)of HAM Act ,1956 burden liability on you, being FIL, but not in lifetime of your son.
Shonee Kapoor
(Expert) 05 January 2012
Rightly advised.
Regards,
Shonee Kapoor
harassed.by.498a@gmail.com
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 08 January 2012
I think no scope is left for others when sethi has put his case with full preparation.
