The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently observed that a father-in-law cannot be compelled to give maintenance to his widowed daughter-in-law, going by either the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 or Muslim personal law [Bashir Khan v. Ishrat Bano].
Justice Hirdesh made the observation while allowing a man's plea against a trial court order directing him to pay ₹3,000 as monthly maintenance to his widowed daughter-in-law.
"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 Court said in the October 24 ruling.
By way of background, the petitioner's daughter-in-law had married the petitioner's son in 2011. In 2015, the petitioner's son passed away, leaving behind his widow (petitioner's daughter-in-law).
The widow had filed a domestic violence case against her in-laws. After her husband's death, she filed an application seeking ₹40,000 has monthly maintenance to meet her day-to-day needs.
The petitioner (the woman's father-in-law) opposed this plea. However, a trial court eventually ordered him to pay ₹3,000 per month to the widowed daughter-in-law.
The father-in-law then filed an appeal challenging the trial court order before a sessions court. After the sessions court dismissed his appeal, he (petitioner) approached the High Court by filing a revision petition to question the correctness of the maintenance order.
The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner was an aged person and (since he was a member of the Muslim community), did not have any obligation to maintain his widowed daughter-in-law under Mahomedean Law (Muslim personal law).
No such obligation is cast under the Domestic Violence Act either, the Court was told. In this regard, reliance was placed on certain other High Court judgments, including the Calcutta High Court ruling in Shabnam Parveen v. State of West Bengal & others.
The petitioner's counsel added that even when the petitioner's son was alive, the daughter-in-law had been living separately.
In these circumstances, the petitioner asserted that he was not obligated to part with his money to pay maintenance to his widowed daughter-in-law.
The High Court found merit in these arguments and observed that the trial Court had committed an error in ordering the petitioner to pay maintenance to his daughter-in-law. Accordingly, the petition was allowed and the maintenance order was set aside.
Advocate Akshat Kumar Jain appeared for the petitioner. Advocate Romesh Pratab Singh appeared for the respondent.
[Read Order]