Kanchana Rai v. Geeta Sharma 2026 INSC 54 -Ss.21,22 Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act

Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 - Section 21,22- “Any widow of the son” of a deceased Hindu is a dependant within the meaning of Section 21 (vii) of the Act and is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 22 of the Act - (Para 29) A widow of the deceased son of the Hindu is a dependant irrespective of the time she becomes a widow (Para 15)- It cannot be interpreted to mean that only a widow of the predeceased son of a Hindu would be covered by the said definition. (Para 16)

Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 - Section 19,22- Section 19 contemplates for the maintenance of the daughter-in-law during the lifetime of father-in-law, whereas, Section 22 contemplates “maintenance of dependants” including “widowed daughterin-law” from the estate of her father-in-law meaning thereby that a claim under Section 22 can be raised only after the death of the father-in-law. (Para 28)

Constitution of India - Article 14 -The classification sought to be made between widowed daughters-in-law based solely on the timing of the husband’s death, namely, (a) those whose husbands died 11 during the lifetime of the father-in-law, and (b) those whose husbands died after him; is manifestly unreasonable and arbitrary- Denial of maintenance to one category based on a fortuitous circumstance beyond their control is manifestly arbitrary and violative of the guarantee of equality before law under Article 14 of the Constitution (Para 23) Article 21 -Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life with dignity. The right to life has been judicially expanded to include the right to livelihood and basic sustenance. Denying maintenance to a widowed daughter-in-law from the estate of her deceased father-inlaw on a narrow or technical construction of the statute would expose her to destitution and social marginalization, thereby offending her fundamental right to live with dignity. (Para 24)

Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 - Section 4- Section 4 of the Act has an overriding effect but it does not erase away fundamental principles of Hindu law particularly where some doubt is raised about the codified provisions. [Context: Supreme Court quotes ""No mother, no father, no wife, and no son deserves to be forsaken." from Manu Smriti while interpreting a provision in Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act in favour of a widow.]

Interpretation of Statutes - It is a cardinal principle of interpretation of law that where the provision is clear and unambiguous, it has to be interpreted literally provided the literal interpretation is not in conflict with the purpose of the Act or is otherwise not impractical - The courts cannot add or subtract any word from the text of the statute. The provisions of the statute cannot be re-written by the courts by assuming or inferring something which is not implicit from the plain language of the statute. (Para 17-22)