Maintenance — Who Owes a Duty to Whom — Hindu Law (Family Law I) Notes

Maintenance under HAMA, 1956

(Note: Maintenance was also covered in Unit II — the sections below focus on the additional/specific provisions.)

Maintenance — The Statutory Scheme

The Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA) provides statutory rights to maintenance for:

Section 18 — Wife:

A Hindu wife is entitled to be maintained by her husband during her lifetime.
She is entitled to live separately AND claim maintenance in the following cases (S.18(2)):
- Husband deserts her.
- Husband treats her with cruelty.
- Husband has another wife living.
- Husband keeps a concubine in the matrimonial home or habitually resides with a concubine.
- Husband has ceased to be Hindu by conversion.
- Any other just cause.
She forfeits the right if she is unchaste or has converted from Hinduism (S.18(3)).

Section 19 — Widowed daughter-in-law:

Section 19(1) makes the father-in-law’s obligation a remote, last-resort obligation, not a primary one. It is triggered 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, if any, or his or her estate.”
The priority chain is therefore: (1) her own earnings/property → (2) her husband’s estate or her own father’s or mother’s estate (these stand at the same stage — the statute does not require the husband’s estate to be tried first) → (3) her son’s or daughter’s estate → (4) only then, her father-in-law’s estate, and even then capped to his share of coparcenary property out of which she has not obtained a share.
This right ends if she remarries.
Her own father’s (or mother’s) estate is explicitly listed in S.19(1) as a source she must show is unavailable before the father-in-law’s obligation arises — so a widow is not barred from claiming against her own father; that claim is one of the sources she must exhaust first, not a legally “misconceived” claim.

Section 20 — Children and aged parents:

A Hindu is bound to maintain his legitimate and illegitimate children until they attain majority, and after majority if they are unable to maintain themselves due to physical/mental infirmity.
A Hindu is bound to maintain his aged or infirm parents who cannot maintain themselves.
An unmarried daughter must be maintained until she is married.

Section 21 — Dependants:

Dependants (widowed daughter, minor children, dependent parents of the deceased) are entitled to maintenance from the heirs who take the deceased’s estate, in proportion to their shares.

Factors for determining the amount of maintenance (S.23):

Position and status of the parties.
Reasonable wants of the claimant.
Whether the claimant is living separately and if so the justification.
Claimant’s own property and income.
Number of persons entitled to maintenance.

flowchart TD
    ROOT["Maintenance — HAMA 1956"]:::root
    ROOT --> A["S.18 — Wife<br/>(from husband, during lifetime;<br/>separate residence on just cause)"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> B["S.19 — Widowed daughter-in-law<br/>(father-in-law's estate is remote/<br/>last resort; own father's estate<br/>is a source tried first)"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> C["S.20 — Children & Parents<br/>(legitimate + illegitimate children;<br/>aged/infirm parents)"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> D["S.21 — Dependants<br/>(from heirs, proportionate<br/>to shares taken)"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> E["S.23 — Quantum<br/>(status, reasonable wants,<br/>own income, no. of claimants)"]:::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; it flows from the marriage bond.
Jagdish Jugtawat v. Manju Lata (2002) — Daughter’s maintenance continues until marriage; widowed daughter-in-law’s claim against the father-in-law’s estate (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.
Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Mrs. Veena Kaushal (1978) — A Hindu husband cannot deprive his wife of maintenance by disposing of his property; maintenance is a first charge on the estate.
Vijaya v. Ramaiah (2000) — Maintenance of an unmarried daughter under S.20 continues until she is married, even if she is a major.

📋 16-MARK ESSAY BLUEPRINT (Maintenance)

STAGE 1 ──► Hook + Roadmap: Open with Kulbhushan v. Raj Kumari — maintenance is a personal obligation. State you will cover S.18 (wife), S.19 (widowed daughter-in-law), S.20 (children/parents), S.21 (dependants), and S.23 (quantum).

STAGE 2 ──► S.18 — Wife: Lifetime right; separate residence on six specific grounds; forfeiture on unchastity or conversion.

STAGE 3 ──► S.19 — Widowed daughter-in-law: Remote/last-resort liability of father-in-law’s estate — triggered only after she shows she cannot obtain maintenance from her own property, her husband’s or her own father’s/mother’s estate, and her children’s estate; ends on remarriage.

STAGE 4 ──► S.20 — Children & parents: Legitimate + illegitimate; minor and physically infirm adult children; aged/infirm parents; unmarried daughter until marriage.

STAGE 5 ──► S.23 Quantum + Verdict: Factors for quantum. Close with Captain Ramesh Chander — maintenance is a first charge on the estate.

📄 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