Maintenance and Alimony — Hindu Law (Family Law I) Notes

Maintenance and Alimony

In Kulbhushan v. Raj Kumari (1970), the Supreme Court held that a Hindu wife’s right to maintenance is a personal obligation of her husband — not merely a right against property. This case gave maintenance its strongest legal footing, recognising it as a right flowing from the marriage bond itself.

Maintenance under HAMA, 1956

The Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA) codifies the right to maintenance.

Section 18(1), HAMA 1956: “Subject to the provisions of this section, a Hindu wife, whether married before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be entitled to be maintained by her husband during her lifetime.”

Section 18(2) — Wife’s right to live separately AND claim maintenance in these cases:

Husband is guilty of desertion (without reasonable cause or consent).
Husband has treated her with cruelty.
Husband has any other wife living.
Husband keeps a concubine in the same house or habitually resides with a concubine elsewhere.
Husband has ceased to be Hindu by conversion.
Any other cause justifying her living separately.

Section 18(3) — Wife loses right if:

She is unchaste; or
She has ceased to be Hindu by conversion.

Maintenance of divorced wife (S.25 HMA 1955): The court may order permanent alimony and maintenance at the time of passing any decree or at any time subsequently. The amount is at the court’s discretion (considering the parties’ income, property, conduct, etc.).

Maintenance of children and parents: Section 20, HAMA — Hindu is bound to maintain his legitimate and illegitimate children and aged/infirm parents who cannot maintain themselves.

Maintenance of widowed daughter-in-law (S.19, HAMA): Section 19(1) makes the father-in-law’s obligation a remote, last-resort obligation, not a primary one. It arises only to the extent the widow is unable to maintain herself out of (1) her own earnings or property, or, if she has none, is unable to obtain maintenance from (2) the estate of her husband or from her own father’s or mother’s estate, or (3) from her son’s or daughter’s estate (if any). Only after all of these sources are shown to be unavailable does the father-in-law’s obligation arise — and even then it is capped to the extent he has coparcenary property in his possession out of which the daughter-in-law has not obtained a share.

Widow — Maintenance from Whom?

A Hindu widow’s maintenance claims follow a priority chain, not a single source: first, her own earnings/property; second (if she has none), her deceased husband’s estate or her own father’s or mother’s estate — the statute places these on equal footing as sources she must try before going further; third, her son’s or daughter’s estate; and only last, her father-in-law’s estate under S.19 — a remote obligation that is triggered only once the widow shows she cannot obtain maintenance from any of the preceding sources. So a widow can claim maintenance from her own father’s estate — indeed the statute requires her to look there (and to her husband’s estate) before she can reach her father-in-law at all. Separately, under Section 20, her children (son/daughter) have their own independent obligation to maintain her.

flowchart TD
    ROOT["Maintenance under HAMA 1956"]:::root
    ROOT --> A["S.18 — Wife's maintenance<br/>from Husband (lifetime)"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> B["S.18(2) — Separate residence +<br/>maintenance (desertion, cruelty,<br/>bigamy, conversion)"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> C["S.19 — Widowed daughter-in-law<br/>from father-in-law's estate<br/>(remote, last-resort obligation)"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> D["S.20 — Children & aged parents<br/>from Hindu's income"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> E["S.25 HMA — Permanent alimony<br/>after divorce decree"]:::leaf

    classDef root fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#333,stroke-width:1px,color:#000;
    classDef leaf fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;
    linkStyle default stroke:#888,stroke-width:1px;

Case Laws

Kulbhushan v. Raj Kumari (1970) — Maintenance is a personal obligation of the husband; flows from the marriage bond.
Jagdish Jugtawat v. Manju Lata (2002) — Supreme Court: a daughter’s right to maintenance from her parents continues until she is married; a widowed daughter-in-law’s right against the father-in-law’s estate under S.19 is a remote right, arising only after she has exhausted her own property/earnings, her husband’s or her own parents’ estate, and her children’s estate.
Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamla Devi (1975) — Permanent alimony under S.25 is at the court’s discretion; the court must consider income of both parties.

🚨 FACT-PATTERN RISK ALERT (Widow’s Maintenance)

Scenario: ‘A’ is a widow. She sues her own father and her father-in-law separately for maintenance. Decide.

I — ISSUE: Against whom is a Hindu widow entitled to claim maintenance, and in what order — her own father, or her father-in-law?

R — RULE: S.19(1), HAMA 1956 — the father-in-law’s obligation is a remote, last-resort obligation. It arises only “to the extent that she is unable to maintain herself out of her own earnings or other property, or, where she has no property of her own, is unable to obtain maintenance (a) from the estate of her husband or her father or mother, or (b) from her son or daughter.” Her own father’s (or mother’s) estate is thus an express statutory source she must show is unavailable before the father-in-law’s obligation is triggered at all.

A — ANALYSIS: ‘A’ cannot simply choose either defendant at will. She must first show she cannot maintain herself from her own earnings/property; if not, she must show she cannot obtain maintenance from her husband’s estate or from her own father’s/mother’s estate (these two are alternative sources at the same stage, not a first-vs-second choice), and then from her son’s or daughter’s estate. Only after all of this is exhausted does her father-in-law’s (capped) obligation under S.19 arise. The suit against her own father is not automatically misconceived — it is, in fact, one of the very sources of maintenance the law expects her to pursue/rule out first. Decoy: do not assume S.19 makes the father-in-law the primary or sole obligor — S.20 (children → parents) is a separate, independent obligation, but it does not mean the father-in-law is the first port of call either.

C — CONCLUSION: ‘A’ is entitled to proceed against her own father’s estate as one of the sources she must exhaust; only if she cannot obtain adequate maintenance from her own property, her husband’s estate, her father’s/mother’s estate, and her children’s estate does her claim against her father-in-law under S.19 mature. Both suits are legally maintainable in principle, but the father-in-law’s liability is conditional on the widow first being unable to secure maintenance from the other named sources, including her own father.

📄 Full notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past KSLU questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · 10 Solved Problems · All Hindu Law topics