The Gwalior bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court reiterated that under Muslim law, a father-in-law is not required to provide financial assistance to the widow of his deceased son.

In doing so, the High Court set aside the orders of the trial court and sessions courts, which had directed the petitioner’s father-in-law to pay monthly maintenance to his daughter-in-law after the death of his son.

A single bench of judges composed of Judge Hirdesh said: “IIn the present case, it is not in dispute that the respondent is the widow of the petitioner’s son and, according to the Mohammedan law cited above, the father of the widow’s husband is not obliged to support her. The Calcutta High Court has specifically observed in the case of Shabnam Parveen (supra) that under the DV Act, the father-in-law of the son’s widow is not liable to pay maintenance to her.“.

The High Court referred to the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case Shabnam Parveen Vs. State of West Bengal and otherswhich held that under Muslim personal law, a father-in-law is not required to provide alimony to his son’s widow.

The High Court then said: “In accordance with the provisions of Muslim law and the DV Act, in the considered opinion of this Court, the present petitioner being the father-in-law of the respondent, cannot be compelled to pay maintenance to the respondent..”

The respondent, the widow of the petitioner’s son, requested from the petitioner alimony for herself and her two children after the death of her husband. The defendant applied for maintenance under sections 18 to 22 of the Domestic Violence Act. The Judicial Magistrate First Class awarded him maintenance of Rs. 3,000 per month and this was also confirmed by the First Additional Sessions Judge. The petitioner’s father-in-law challenged these orders in the High Court, claiming that under Muslim personal law, he had no financial obligation to support his daughter-in-law.

To support his argument, the petitioner’s counsel referred to the Mulla Principles of Muslim Law, Chapter XIX on maintenance of kin and maintenance of other relations and also cited the judgment of the Bombay High Court in affair Mahomed Abdul Aziz Hidayat vs. Khairunnissa Abdul Gani (1950) which maintains that a father cannot be forced to support the wife of his deceased son.

The High Court observed that the trial court and the sessions court erred in awarding maintenance to the widowed daughter-in-law.

“In view of the above analysis as well as the case law, it appears that the trial court as well as the sessions court erred in awarding maintenance in favor of the respondent. Therefore, the order dated 21.01.2022 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri (MP) in Criminal Appeal No. 25/2021 and the order dated 09.02.2021 passed in MJCR No. 1200291/ 2015 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shivpuri are hereby quashed,” he said.

Case Title: Bashir Khan vs. Ishrat Bano

Case No: CRR-458-2022

Click here to read/download the order