In Roshan Lal Saw v. Nilam Kumari & Ors (F.A. No. 229 of 2024, Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:32181-DB, decided 3 November 2026), a Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court — Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Manoj Prasad — dismissed an appeal by an 83-year-old father-in-law against a Family Court order awarding monthly maintenance under Sections 19 and 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 to his widowed daughter-in-law and two minor grandsons. The Court held that the legal and moral obligation does not get exonerated on account of age, and directed all arrears to be cleared within two months.
The case in one view
| Case | Roshan Lal Saw v. Nilam Kumari & Ors, F.A. No. 229 of 2024 (2026:JHHC:32181-DB) |
|---|---|
| Court | High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, Division Bench (M.S. Sonak, CJ and Manoj Prasad, J) |
| Decided | 3 November 2026 (reserved 6 October 2026) |
| Below | Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad — Original Maintenance Case No. 403 of 2023, judgment 11 June 2024 |
| Provisions | Sections 19, 20, 21, 22 and 4 HAMA; Section 19(1), Family Courts Act 1984 |
| Outcome | Appeal dismissed; Rs 17,000 per month affirmed; arrears payable within two months |
A widow, two children, and the only surviving breadwinner\'s father
The respondent married the appellant\'s only son in December 2010; he died in October 2020 in a Hyderabad hospital while under treatment. The widow, left with two minor sons and — as she pleaded — no share of her husband\'s estate and no independent livelihood, applied under Sections 19 and 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 before the Family Court at Dhanbad. In June 2024 that court awarded Rs 7,000 per month to her and Rs 5,000 to each child until majority, from the application date of 24 September 2021. The father-in-law appealed.
The old-age defence, tested against the record
The appellant\'s case had emotional force: he is 83-84, his wife over 80, and they live on his pension. He argued that the trial court misread Sections 19 to 22, that no documentary proof of his earnings was produced, that he already pays the grandchildren\'s school fees, that a pension cannot by itself found a maintenance order, and that ancestral agricultural land could not be pressed into the computation. But the record told a fuller story. He admitted a pension of about Rs 32,000 per month. A lease showed shop rent of Rs 17,000 per month from July 2017 with ten per cent escalation every five years — which, the Court noted, “must have become payable at Rs 18,700” from 2022. And as Karta, he controls the ancestral property from which the widow had received nothing. His own counter-affidavit showed only Rs 1,99,000 paid against Rs 8,33,000 payable, leaving arrears of Rs 6,34,000.
The statutory scheme the Court applied
Section 19 HAMA
A widowed daughter-in-law unable to maintain herself may claim from her father-in-law, to the extent of coparcenary property in his hands from which she has obtained no share, so long as she does not remarry.
Sections 20-21 HAMA
Maintenance of children and the list of dependants — including minor grandsons and a son\'s widow — frame the grandchildren\'s entitlement.
Section 22 HAMA
Heirs maintain dependants of the deceased out of the estate they take; the family\'s means, not sympathy, fix the measure.
The Bench grounded the analysis in Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and in the Supreme Court\'s recent exposition in Kanchan Rai v. Geeta Sharma, 2026 INSC 54, quoting its operative paragraphs — and reached back further still, citing the Manu Smriti\'s injunction on maintaining dependants. The holding was unambiguous: the obligation “does not get exonerated on account of the age of the present appellant”; the respondents “are also entitled to the quantum of maintenance awarded by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad”; and “We therefore find no merit in this appeal.”
Why it matters in practice: Section 19 HAMA claims are comparatively rare, and the defence almost always pleaded is the father-in-law\'s age and limited means. This judgment shows how courts actually test that plea — against pension, rental income and control of family property as Karta, not against age in the abstract. For widows advising on remedies after a husband\'s death, HAMA sits alongside Section 144 BNSS (where the in-law route is unavailable) and succession claims; where the father-in-law holds family property from which the widow took no share, Section 19 is often the remedy that fits. And the two-month deadline for Rs 6.34 lakh of arrears is a reminder that appellate affirmation increasingly comes with enforcement teeth.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who can claim maintenance from a father-in-law under HAMA?
Under Section 19, a widowed daughter-in-law who cannot maintain herself from her own earnings or property, or from the estate of her husband, parents or children, may claim from her father-in-law — to the extent he has means from coparcenary property in his hands out of which she has not obtained a share, and so long as she does not remarry. Section 21 also lists a son's widow and minor grandsons among dependants.
What had the Family Court awarded?
The Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad awarded Rs 7,000 per month to the widow and Rs 5,000 to each of the two minor sons until majority — Rs 17,000 in total — payable from the application date of 24 September 2021. The husband, the appellant's only son, had died in October 2020 while under treatment in Hyderabad.
What were the father-in-law's defences?
That he is 83-84 and his wife over 80, that they depend on his pension of about Rs 32,000 per month, that no documentary proof of his earnings was produced, that he already pays the grandchildren's school fees, and that pension and ancestral agricultural land could not found the award. The record, however, also showed shop rent of about Rs 18,000 per month and his control of ancestral property as Karta.
What exactly did the High Court hold?
Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Kanchan Rai v. Geeta Sharma (2026 INSC 54), the Court held the obligation to maintain the widowed daughter-in-law and grandchildren does not get exonerated on account of the appellant's age, found no merit in the appeal, affirmed the quantum, and ordered the outstanding arrears — Rs 6,34,000 against Rs 8,33,000 payable — cleared within a maximum of two months.