KANCHANA RAIversusGEETA SHARMA & ORS.

                   [2026] 2 S.C.R. 191 : 2026 INSC 54

                               Kanchana Rai
                                     v.
                            Geeta Sharma & Ors.
                    (Civil Appeal No(s). 245-246 of 2026)
                                 13 January 2026
                [Pankaj Mithal* and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ.]


                             Issue for Consideration
       Whether a daughter-in-law, who becomes a widow after the death
       of her father-in-law, is a dependant upon the estate of the father-
       in-law, and entitled to claim maintenance from his estate.

                                    Headnotes†
       Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act, 1956 – Chapter III, ss.18
       to 28 – Maintenance – Widow daughter-in-law – A daughter-
       in-law became widow after death of her father-in-law – She
       is dependent upon the estate of father-in-law – Whether she
       is entitled to claim maintenance from her father-in-law’s
       estate – Whether the words “any widow of his son” would
       mean “widow of his predeceased son” only:
       Held: In view of the language so used in s.21(vii) of the Act and
       guided by the settled principles, there is hardly any scope to
       interpret that the words “any widow of his son” used therein would
       mean “widow of his predeceased son” only – The courts cannot
       add or subtract any word from the text of the statute – Any such
       restrictive interpretation would fail the test of constitutional validity
       u/Art.14 of the Constitution – 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 during
       the lifetime of the father-in-law, and (b) those whose husbands
       died after him; is manifestly unreasonable and arbitrary – Any
       interpretation contrary to one opined above, would also infringe
       upon Art.21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life
       with dignity – Denying maintenance to a widowed daughter-in-
       law from the estate of her deceased father-in-law 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 – The provisions of the Act must, therefore, be
* Author
192                                                            [2026] 2 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


       read purposively and in conformity with constitutional values, so
       as to advance social justice and protect the dignity of vulnerable
       dependants rather than defeat it – The Act does not envisage to
       rule out the above obligation of the father-in-law to maintain his
       widowed daughter-in-law, irrespective of the fact when she became
       a widow whether prior or after his death – s.19 of the Act simply
       contemplates that a Hindu wife is entitled to be maintained after
       the death of her husband by her father-in-law – Whereas, s.22
       contemplates “maintenance of dependants” including “widowed
       daughter-in-law” from the estate of her father-in-law meaning
       thereby that a claim u/s.22 can be raised only after the death of
       the father-in-law – This Court is clearly of the opinion that “any
       widow of the son” of a deceased Hindu is a dependant within the
       meaning of s.21(vii) of the Act and is entitled to claim maintenance
       u/s.22 of the Act. [Paras 22, 23, 24, 26, 28, 29]

                                Case Law Cited
       B. Premanand v. Mohan Koikal [2011] 3 SCR 932: (2011) 4 SCC
       266; Vinod Kumar v. DM, Mau [2023] 10 SCR 387 : (2023) 19
       SCC 126 – referred to.
       Crawford v. Spooner (1846) 4 Moo IA 179 – referred to.

                         Books and Periodicals Cited
       Manu Smriti vide Chapter 8, verse 389.

                                  List of Acts
       Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956; Hindu Succession
       Act, 1956; Constitution of India.

                               List of Keywords
       Literal interpretation; Widow daughter-in-law; Widow dependent on
       father-in-law; Estate of father-in-law; Maintenance; Section 19 of
       Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956; Section 22 of Hindu
       Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956; Maintenance of dependents;
       Article 14 of Constitution of India; Article 21 of Constitution.

                              Case Arising From
       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s). 245-246
       of 2026
[2026] 2 S.C.R.                                                         193

                    Kanchana Rai v. Geeta Sharma & Ors.


     From the Judgment and Order dated 20.08.2025 and 26.08.2025
     of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in MATAPP (FC) No. 303
     of 2024 and CMAPPL No. 52693 of 2025, respectively
     With
     Civil Appeal No. 247 of 2026

                          Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Appellant(s):
     Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, V. Giri, Arvind Nayyar, Sr. Advs.,
     D. Abhinav Rao, B. Shravanth Shanker, Rahul Narang.
     Advs. for the Respondent(s):
     Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv., Varun Singh, Nitin Saluja, Ms. Deepeika
     Kalia, Ms. Alankriti Dwivedi, Ms. Somesa Gupta, Sudeep Chandra,
     Ms. Khushi.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                Judgment

     Pankaj Mithal, J.

1.   Leave granted.
2.   Heard Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Shri V. Giri, senior counsel
     appearing for the respective appellants in the two appeals and Shri
     Vikas Singh, senior counsel for the contesting respondents, in both
     the appeals.
3.   The controversy is inter se the heirs/family members of late Dr.
     Mahendra Prasad who died on 27.12.2021. He had three sons,
     namely, Ranjit Sharma, who passed away on 02.03.2023, Devinder
     Rai, husband of the appellant-Kanchana Rai and Rajeev Sharma. It
     is alleged that late Dr. Mahendra Prasad executed a registered Will
     on 18.07.2011, appointing the appellant, the wife of his pre-deceased
     son Devinder Rai, as the executor while bequeathing his properties
     in favour of her two sons, completely ignoring his own two sons
     namely Ranjit Sharma and Rajeev Sharma.
4.   Smt. Geeta Sharma, Respondent No. 1, wife of one of the sons,
     Ranjit Sharma, who died after the death of Dr. Mahendra Prasad,
     applied for maintenance from the estate of her father-in-law, before the
194                                                         [2026] 2 S.C.R.

                                    Supreme Court Reports


       Family Court under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 19561.
       The petition was dismissed by the Family Court as not maintainable
       as Respondent no.1 was not a widow on the date of death of Dr.
       Mahindra Prasad, since her husband, Ranjit Sharma was alive at
       the time of his father’s demise. The High Court, in appeal, set aside
       the order of the Family Court recording a categorical finding that
       the petition was maintainable as Respondent no.1 was the widow
       of one of the sons of late Dr. Mahindra Prasad and as such was a
       dependant. Accordingly, the High Court directed the Family Court
       to consider the matter on merit and to decide about the quantum
       of maintenance.
5.     Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of the High Court
       dated 20.08.2025, the appellant-Smt. Kanchana Rai, the wife of late
       Devinder Rai, the pre-deceased son of late Dr. Mahindra Prasad,
       has preferred one of these appeals on the issue of maintainability
       of the maintenance petition filed by the Respondent No.1
6.     The other appeal has been preferred by one Smt. Uma Devi, the
       alleged partner of late Dr. Mahindra Prasad, contending that she
       was in a live-in relationship with him over the last forty years and
       that Respondent No. 1 had no legal right for seeking maintenance
       from the estate of late Dr. Mahendra Prasad.
7.     In these facts and circumstances, a short and simple question, which
       has been made intricate by legal engineering of the legal minds,
       arising in these appeals is: whether a daughter-in-law, who becomes
       a widow after the death of her father-in-law, is a dependant upon
       the estate of the father-in-law, and entitled to claim maintenance
       from his estate.
8.     Since the issue which is falling for our consideration is purely legal
       in nature, we intend to proceed and decide it on our own thinking
       and reasoning on the simple interpretation of the provisions of the
       Act, independent of the view taken by either of the courts below i.e.
       the Family Court and the High Court or on the basis of the Hindu
       Succession Act, 1956, which is completely alien for the purposes of
       any interpretation of the provisions of the present Act.



1    Hereinafter referred to as “the Act”
[2026] 2 S.C.R.                                                          195

                    Kanchana Rai v. Geeta Sharma & Ors.


9.   The law on the grant of maintenance of Hindus has been codified
     by enacting the Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act, 1956. The
     aforesaid Act provides for the adoption as well for the maintenance.
     The adoption part is dealt under Chapter II of the Act, whereas
     Chapter III of the Act provides for maintenance to the dependants
     of a Hindu under Sections 18 to 28.
10. The “dependants” have been defined under Section 21 of the Act
    inter alia to include the following relatives of the deceased.
           “…
           2 (vii). any widow of his son or of a son of his predeceased
           son, so long as she does not remarry: provided and to the
           extent that she is unable to obtain maintenance from her
           husband’s estate. or from her son or daughter, if any, or
           his or her estate; or in the case of a grandson’s widow,
           also from her father-in-law’s estate;
           …”
11. A plain reading of the above definition of the dependants makes it
    crystal clear that the relatives of the deceased, namely, “any widow
    of his son” would be a dependant provided she is unable to maintain
    herself from her husband’s estate or from her son or her daughter’s
    estate and in the case of grandson’s widow, from her father-in-law’s
    estate.
12. Section 22 of the Act provides for the maintenance of dependants
    and casts an obligation upon all the heirs of the deceased Hindu to
    maintain the dependants of the deceased out of the estate inherited
    by them from the deceased. In simpler words, all the heirs of the
    deceased Hindu are obliged to maintain the dependants of the
    deceased from the funds inherited out of the estate of the deceased.
13. Sub-section (2) of Section 22 further provides that where a
    dependant of the deceased Hindu has not obtained share in the
    estate of the Hindu either by testamentary or intestate- succession,
    such a dependant shall be entitled to maintenance from those who
    take the estate. Therefore, anyone succeeding to the estate of the
    deceased Hindu is under an obligation to maintain the dependant
    of the deceased.
14. Section 23 of the Act provides for the manner and the factors on the
    basis of which maintenance to a dependant has to be determined.
196                                                           [2026] 2 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


15. Section 21 of the Act, as stated earlier, is only a defining section
    which defines the “dependants” of the deceased Hindu. One of the
    relatives of the deceased Hindu who has been defined as a dependant
    is clearly “any widow of his son” meaning thereby a widow of the
    deceased son of the Hindu is a dependant irrespective of the time
    she becomes a widow.
16. The above definition is quite clear and unambiguous. It is not open for
    any other meaning except that a “widow of the son” of the deceased
    is a dependant. In view of such a clear definition, it is not open for
    anyone to infer and assign any other meaning to the said definition
    so as to say that only a widow of the predeceased son of a Hindu
    would be covered by the said definition. The aforesaid definition
    nowhere uses the word “widow of a predeceased son”. It simply uses
    the words “any widow of a son”. The legislature in its wisdom has
    deliberately avoided to use the word “predeceased” before the “son”
    so as to include any widow of the son. The time of her becoming a
    widow or the death of the son is immaterial.
17. 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.
18. This foundational principle of literal interpretation finds unequivocal
    support in a consistent line of judicial precedents.
19. In Crawford v. Spooner2 the Privy Council observed that the
    construction of an Act must be taken from its bare words, and it is
    not for the courts “to add, and mend, and, by construction, make up
    deficiencies” left by the legislature, nor to “fish out what possibly may
    have been the intention” if not clearly expressed. Judges must take
    the words as they are and give them their natural meaning, unless
    controlled or altered by the context or the preamble.
20. In B. Premanand v. Mohan Koikal3 this Court emphasized that
    departure from the literal rule should be an exception in very rare
    cases, as once courts depart from the literal rule where the language
    is clear, the result would be destructive of judicial discipline and


2   (1846) 4 Moo IA 179
3   (2011) 4 SCC 266
[2026] 2 S.C.R.                                                         197

                        Kanchana Rai v. Geeta Sharma & Ors.


     contrary to the constitutional scheme as the exclusive domain to
     legislate is upon the legislature. The Court aptly noted that “the
     literal rule of interpretation simply means that we mean what we
     say and we say what we mean.” The Court further cautioned that
     even if a literal interpretation results in hardship or inconvenience,
     the same cannot be a ground to depart from the plain meaning of
     the statutory text.
21. More recently, in Vinod Kumar v. DM, Mau4 this Court reaffirmed
    that the literal rule is the first and foremost principle of statutory
    interpretation. Where the words are absolutely clear and unambiguous,
    recourse cannot be had to any other principle. The Court explicitly
    held that “the language employed in a statute is the determinative
    factor of the legislative intent” and that judges cannot correct or make
    up a perceived deficiency in the words used by the legislature. The
    Court held that courts cannot correct or supply an assumed omission
    in the statute, as the legislature is presumed to have intended what
    it has expressly stated.
22. In view of the language so used in Section 21 (vii) of the Act and
    guided by the settled principles reiterated above, there is hardly
    any scope to interpret that the words “any widow of his son” used
    therein would mean “widow of his predeceased son” only. 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.
23. Even otherwise, any such restrictive interpretation would fail the
    test of constitutional validity under Article 14 of the Constitution. 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 during the lifetime of the father-in-law, and (b)
    those whose husbands died after him; is manifestly unreasonable
    and arbitrary. Such a classification bears no rational nexus with
    the object and purpose of the Act, which is to secure maintenance
    to dependants who are unable to maintain themselves. In both
    situations, the women are similarly situated in so far as the object
    of the Act is concerned, having suffered widowhood, being without


4   (2023) 19 SCC 126
198                                                                              [2026] 2 S.C.R.

                              Supreme Court Reports


       spousal support, and facing comparable financial vulnerability. 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.
24. Any interpretation contrary to one opined above, would also infringe
    upon 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-in-law 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. The provisions of
    the Act must, therefore, be read purposively and in conformity with
    constitutional values, so as to advance social justice and protect the
    dignity of vulnerable dependants rather than defeat it.
25. 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. The Hindu law specially
    Manu Smriti vide Chapter 8, verse 389 says:

                        “न मााताा न पि�ताा न स्त्रीी न पुुत्रस्त्याागमर्हहति� ।
                     त्यजन्नपति�ताानेेताान रााज्ञाा दण्ड्् यःः शताानि� षट” ।।
       No mother, no father, no wife, and no son deserves to be forsaken.
       A person who abandons these blameless (relatives) should be fined
       six hundred (units) by the king. This verse emphasizes duty of the
       family head to support female family members.
26. A son or the legal heirs are bound to maintain all the dependant
    persons out of estate inherited i.e. all persons whom the deceased
    was legally and morally bound to maintain. Therefore, on the death
    of son, it is the pious obligation of the father-in-law to maintain
    widowed daughter-in-law, if she is unable to maintain herself either
    on her own or through the property left behind by the deceased son.
    The Act does not envisage to rule out the above obligation of the
    father-in-law to maintain his widowed daughter-in-law, irrespective of
    the fact when she became a widow whether prior or after his death.
27. Though, it may not be very much in context to refer to Section 19 of
    the Act but we consider it proper to refer to it as the Courts below
[2026] 2 S.C.R.                                                       199

                    Kanchana Rai v. Geeta Sharma & Ors.


     have considered and dealt with it and some arguments on its basis
     have been advanced before us.
28. Section 19 of the Act provides for the maintenance of “widowed
    daughter-in-law” of the deceased Hindu. It simply contemplates
    that a Hindu wife is entitled to be maintained after the death of her
    husband by her father-in-law. Thus, it casts an obligation upon the
    father-in-law to maintain his daughter-in-law. The said obligation
    subsists only during the lifetime of the father-in-law as the aforesaid
    provision nowhere contemplates that the daughter-in-law would
    be entitled to maintenance from the estate of the father-in-law. In
    other words, 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
    daughter-in-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.
29. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are clearly of
    the opinion that “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. Therefore,
    no illegality has been committed by the High Court in passing the
    impugned order holding the petition of Respondent no.1, who is a
    widow of the son of the deceased, to be maintainable and in directing
    the Family Court to consider it on merits in accordance with law.
30. The appeals as such lack merits and are dismissed with no order
    as to costs.

     Result of the case: Appeals dismissed.




     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan