Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. The learned counsel for the appellant. Sri C. Poornaiah, submitted that the moral obligation of the father-in-law to maintain a widowed daughter-in-law during his lifetime becomes a legal obligation as against his heirs, who inherit his property. He also submitted that where the heirs succeed to the property under a will or gift there is a legal obligation on them to maintain the widowed daughter-in-law of the deceased. But the question is, when a stranger succeeds to the property under a gift or Will whether there is a legal obligation on him to maintain the widowed daughter-in-law. The learned counsel also contended that the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Maintenance Act') are applicable to the present case and therefore the daughter-in-law is liable to be maintained by the heirs including the donees and legatees.

The Bench then proceeded to examine whether this answer could be pressed into service in the case of a will or gift. The learned Judge observed:

"It is impossible to argue that there is anything in the nature of the transference of property by will or by gift which requires that the legatee or donee should take any thought for the spiritual welfare of the testator or donor. The legatee or donee may be a stranger, may be a Mahomedan, may be a Christian, may be anybody, and as has happened in this case, the donor may expressly say that his widowed daughter-in-law is not to be maintained. The essence of the idea of a will or a gift is that the testator or donor is disposing personally and at his own will and pleasure of the property which he possesses."

64. All the above texts of Hindu Law point out that there is a moral obligation on the father-in-law to maintain the daughter-in-law and that the heirs who inherit the property are liable to maintain the dependants. It is the duty of the Hindu heirs to provide for the bodily and mental or spiritual needs of their immediate and nearer ancestors to relieve them from bodily and mental discomfort and to protect their souls from the consequences of sin. They should maintain the dependants of the persons of property they succeeded. Merely because the property is transferred by gift or by will in favour of the heirs the obligation is not extinct. When there is property in the hands of the heirs belonging to the deceased who had a moral duty to provide maintenance, it becomes a legal duty on the heirs. In our view it makes no difference whether the property is received either by way of succession or by way of gift or will, the principle being common in either case. The reasoning adopted by Ameer Ali, J. in Foolcomari Dashi v. Debendra Nath (AIR 1942 Cal 474) as to how the moral obligation ripens into legal obligation is very logical. We are in agreement with the process of reasoning of Ameer Ali, J. in arriving at the conclusion that the legal liability upon a Hindu heir to provide maintenance to the daughter-in-law exists whether he takes upon the property by intestacy or by will or gift.

65. We are unable to agree with the reasoning of the Bombay High Court. The Bombay High Court mainly proceeded on the ground that the father-in-law has absolute power over his self-acquired property to deal with the same. He has a power to execute will or gift and deprive the daughter-in-law of her maintenance. When the absolute owner has exercised that power and transferred the property under gift or will, the question of enforcing her right against the transferees would not arise at all. The Bombay High Court put it on the ground that the property acquired by valid testamentary disposition is not governed by the rules of the Hindu Law of inheritance and when the power of making such disposition is unrestricted, it is difficult to conceive any consistent ground on which the devisee could be held bound by an obligation from which the testator had power to relieve him and by the bequest had actually relieved him. With great respect, we are not able to agree with this view. The learned Judges there have not taken into consideration the duty of the Hindu heirs to provide for the bodily, and mental or spiritual needs of their immediate and nearer ancestors, and also the fact that there was no rigid distinction between the moral duty and legal duty as there is in the modern society. They have also not considered the concept of 'duty' to be performed by the head of the family and that if he died without performing that duty he had committed sin and that the sons have to discharge that obligation to relieve him from that sin. The Madras High Court in Sankaramurthy v. Subbamma (AIR 1938 Mad 914) followed the view of the Bombay High Court expressed in Yamunabai v. Manubai, (1899) ILR 23 Bom 608; Bhagirathibai v. Dwarakabai (AIR 1933 Bom 135) and of the Lahore High Court in Bhagwanti v. Thakur Mal (AIR 1926 Lah 198). but with great respect we are not in agreement with that view.