Maintenance of Wife, Children, Aged Parents (Sections 18–22)

Sections 18 to 23 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA) collect the personal-law obligations of a Hindu to maintain the people whose dependence the law treats as the husband's, parent's or heir's responsibility. Section 18 fixes the husband's duty to maintain his wife. Section 19 narrowly extends the duty to the father-in-law of a widowed daughter-in-law. Section 20 imposes the duty on every Hindu to maintain children and aged or infirm parents. Sections 21 and 22 carve out a separate category called dependants and load the maintenance obligation onto the heirs of a deceased Hindu out of the estate inherited. Section 23 lays down the discretionary factors that govern quantum.

This chapter is the HAMA-only doctrinal tour. Maintenance is also available under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 144 BNSS), under Sections 24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, and under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 — the broader cross-statute view is set out in our chapter on maintenance under Hindu law. Here we stay inside the four corners of HAMA.

Statutory anchor and scheme

HAMA was enacted in 1956 as one of the four codifying statutes of Hindu personal law. It replaced and consolidated, among other things, the Hindu Married Women's Right to Separate Residence and Maintenance Act, 1946. Section 3(b) defines maintenance inclusively: provision for food, clothing, residence, education and medical attendance and treatment. For an unmarried daughter, maintenance under Section 3(b) read with Section 20(3) also includes the reasonable expenses of her marriage.

Modern Hindu law on maintenance recognises three distinct heads of liability: (a) the personal obligation of a Hindu to maintain wife, children and aged or infirm parents — enforceable irrespective of property; (b) the obligation of an heir to maintain the dependants of the deceased out of the estate inherited; and (c) the inherent obligation of joint family property to maintain its members. Sections 18 and 20 work the first head; Sections 21 and 22 work the second; the third survives uncodified within the architecture of the Hindu joint family.

Section 18 — Maintenance of wife

Section 18(1) is the foundational rule:

The obligation springs from the matrimonial tie itself and arises by virtue of the relationship, not by reference to any property in the husband's hands. The burden lies on the husband to prove that the wife is not entitled. A bare denial of marriage will not displace the wife's claim where long cohabitation has built a presumption of marriage; nor will an alleged customary divorce or living-apart-by-agreement defeat it.

Who counts as a wife

The Section 18 duty is owed to a Hindu wife. A divorced wife is, by the operation of the divorce decree, no longer a wife for Section 18; her remedy lies in Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, on which our chapter on alimony pendente lite, permanent alimony and maintenance is the doctrinal guide. The wife of a void second marriage is, on the strict view, also outside Section 18 — her remedy lies again in Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act after the marriage is declared null. The Bombay High Court in Mangla v. Dhondiba took this strict view: the bigamous wife is not a Section 18 claimant. The Delhi High Court in Suresh Khullar v. Vijay Kumar and in Narinder Pal Kaur v. Manjeet Singh took a more protective view, reading Section 18 to cover a woman who, ignorant of a subsisting first marriage, lived with the husband for years and bore his children — the husband cannot eat the fruit of his own fraud.

Section 18(2) — grounds for separate residence and maintenance

The classical Hindu rule was that a wife must live with her husband; only where her separate living was justified did she have a maintenance claim. The Hindu Married Women's Right to Separate Residence and Maintenance Act, 1946 first liberalised this position; Section 18(2) of HAMA carries forward the seven grounds. A Hindu wife is entitled to live separately from her husband without forfeiting her claim to maintenance where:

1. Desertion — abandoning her without reasonable cause and without her consent or against her wish, or wilfully neglecting her.
2. Cruelty — such treatment as causes a reasonable apprehension in her mind that it would be harmful or injurious to live with him.
3. Virulent leprosy — the husband suffers from a virulent form of leprosy.
4. Any other wife living — the husband has any other wife living.
5. Concubine — the husband keeps a concubine in the same house in which his wife is living, or habitually resides with a concubine elsewhere.
6. Ceased to be Hindu — the husband has ceased to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion.
7. Any other justifiable cause — the residuary clause.

The grounds are narrower in language than the matrimonial-relief grounds under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act — see our chapter on divorce under Section 13 — but courts have read them with a protective gloss. For desertion, the wife in a Section 18(2) claim is not held to the strict animus deserendi proof that divorce-on-desertion demands; the social-welfare object of the provision tilts the construction. Cruelty is read in line with the developed Section 13(1)(ia) jurisprudence: mental cruelty counts; allegations of unchastity count; persistent dowry harassment counts.

Clause (d), the second-wife ground, is read widely. The clause does not require that one of the wives be cohabiting with the husband; it is enough that another wife is living. Clause (e), the concubine ground, attaches the moment the husband habitually resides with a concubine elsewhere — he need not change his ordinary residence so long as the visits are habitual. Clause (g), the residuary, has covered cases where the husband sold the matrimonial home and had the wife illegally confined; cases where the husband's blameworthy conduct fell short of cruelty; and cases where the wife's residence in the matrimonial home was made miserable.

Section 18(3) — forfeiture

Section 18(3) cuts off the entitlement on two grounds: unchastity of the wife, and the wife's conversion to another religion. The 18(3) bar is symmetrical with the 18(2)(f) ground — if the husband converts, the wife may live separately and claim; if the wife converts, she forfeits. Mere allegation of unchastity is not enough; it must be established as a fact. Past unchastity that has ceased before the proceeding is also not a bar; the statute speaks in the present.

Interim maintenance under Section 18

Section 18 does not in terms provide for interim maintenance, but the Andhra Pradesh High Court (Full Bench) in P. Srinivasa Rao v. P. Indira held that the absence of an express provision does not bar interim relief; the court can resort to Section 151 CPC and grant interim maintenance to do justice. The grant of interim maintenance is implicit in the court's power. Quantum is calibrated to provide the wife with a similar style and status to the matrimonial home. An order under Section 125 CrPC is not a bar to a claim under HAMA, although the rule against double recovery applies.

Section 19 — Maintenance of widowed daughter-in-law

During the husband's lifetime the wife claims under Section 18 against him. After his death, Section 19 provides a narrowly conditioned remedy against her father-in-law. Section 19(1) reads:

The widow must run the gauntlet of three filters before the father-in-law's purse is opened. She must show, first, that she cannot maintain herself out of her own earnings or other property; second, that the estate of her husband, her father, or her mother does not yield her maintenance; and third, that she cannot obtain maintenance from a son or daughter. The widow's primary remedy is against her own family's estate; the father-in-law is a subsidiary debtor.

Section 19(2) further narrows the obligation. The father-in-law is bound to maintain only to the extent that he has coparcenary property in his possession out of which the widow has not obtained any share. The obligation does not attach to the father-in-law's separate or self-acquired property. The obligation also ceases on the widow's remarriage.

The reading hinges on the post-Hindu-Succession-Act position. Under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, the widow is a Class I heir and takes the deceased husband's interest in the coparcenary by succession — the architecture of which is mapped in our chapters on the devolution of interest in coparcenary property and on the daughter's right in coparcenary after Vineeta Sharma. Where she has factually obtained her share, Section 19 cannot be invoked. Where she has not — because the husband bequeathed his undivided share under Section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act, or because the share was somehow not allotted — the father-in-law remains liable.

Section 19(2) applies only to Mitakshara families. There is no Mitakshara-style coparcenary in Dayabhaga, so the sub-section is structurally inapplicable to the latter — see our chapter on Mitakshara and Dayabhaga schools.

Section 20 — Maintenance of children and aged parents

Section 20 imposes the most active personal obligation in the chapter. Section 20(1) provides that a Hindu is bound, during his or her lifetime, to maintain his or her legitimate or illegitimate children and his or her aged or infirm parents. The duty is, by the use of the words his or her, gender-neutral. The mother of a child is as bound as the father; a daughter is as bound to maintain an aged parent as a son.

Children — Section 20(2)

Section 20(2) entitles a legitimate or illegitimate child to claim maintenance from the father or mother during minority. The conjunction or in the sub-section has been read as and — the child can claim against both parents where both are capable, the courts have held in cases like Mohinder Singh v. Ravneet Kaur. The father's obligation is statutory; he cannot escape it by an agreement with the mother that the mother will bear the cost. Indigence does not extinguish the obligation; it goes only to quantum.

Unmarried daughter — Section 20(3)

Section 20(3) is the celebrated provision that takes the unmarried daughter past majority. The obligation to maintain her continues so long as she is unable to maintain herself out of her own earnings or property — it does not cease on her attaining 18. This is wider than Section 125 CrPC and wider than Sections 24 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Section 3(b) read with Section 20(3) further pulls in the reasonable expenses of her marriage; where the father owns joint family property, those expenses come out of it. The primary liability for the daughter's marriage expenses is the father's; brothers are not liable unless they inherit the joint family property from the father.

Aged or infirm parents — Section 20(3)

The same sub-section requires the maintenance of an aged or infirm parent who is unable to maintain himself or herself out of own earnings or property. The expression aged or infirm is closely linked to the ability to earn. There is no fixed test; courts look at whether, in the circumstances of the particular parent, self-maintenance is realistically available. Step-mother is treated as covered for Section 20(3) purposes — a step-son is bound to maintain her, although the position is qualified where he has not inherited from the father.

Charge over property — Section 39 TPA

HAMA does not itself create a charge for the Section 20 maintenance over the parent's property. But Section 39 of the Transfer of Property Act fills the gap: where a third person has a right to receive maintenance from the profits of immovable property, and that property is transferred, the transferee takes subject to the right if he had notice or if the transfer was gratuitous. Wife and children fall within the third-person category. The TPA gear is essential reading because HAMA Section 27 deals only with dependants — see our notes on the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

Section 21 — Definition of dependants

Sections 21 and 22 carve out a separate, post-mortem category. The Section 21 dependants are not entitled to maintenance from the deceased during his lifetime; the right arises only on his death and is enforceable against the heirs out of the estate inherited. Section 21 enumerates the dependants of a Hindu (male or female):

1. His or her father.
2. His or her mother.
3. His widow, so long as she does not remarry.
4. His or her son, son's son, or son's son's son, who is a minor, and who is unable to obtain maintenance from his father's or mother's estate (in the case of a great-grandson, also unable to obtain it from his paternal grandfather's or grandmother's estate), and only so long as he has not obtained any share in the property.
5. His or her unmarried daughter, son's unmarried daughter, or son's son's unmarried daughter, so long as she remains unmarried, on the same conditions of inability to obtain maintenance from the parent's or grandparent's estate.
6. His widowed daughter, where she is unable to obtain maintenance from her husband's estate, her son's or daughter's estate, or her father-in-law.
7. The widow of his pre-deceased son, or the widow of a son of his pre-deceased son, so long as she does not remarry, where she is unable to obtain maintenance from the estate of her husband, her father, or her mother, or from her son or daughter.
8. His or her minor illegitimate son, so long as he remains a minor.
9. His or her illegitimate daughter, so long as she remains unmarried.

Three observations from the case-law are worth fixing:

First, parents are dependants only where they have not inherited any property of the deceased. The mother is a Class I heir of a Hindu male under the Hindu Succession Act and ordinarily inherits, displacing her dependant status; the father is not a Class I heir and accordingly more often qualifies. Second, the wife and minor children are not dependants for Section 21 purposes — their remedies lie in Sections 18 and 20. Section 28 of the Act, which protects a dependant's right of maintenance against transferees of the estate, accordingly does not protect the wife or children. Third, the widow of a void marriage was allowed maintenance through the gateway of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act — not Section 21 — in Rajeshbai v. Shantabai.

The dependant must be a Hindu. Conversion forfeits the claim, paralleling Section 24 of the Act.

Section 22 — Heirs' obligation to dependants

Section 22 fixes the heirs' obligation. Section 22(1) provides that the heirs of a deceased Hindu are bound to maintain the dependants out of the estate inherited. Section 22(2) clarifies that the obligation arises only where the dependant has not obtained any share in the estate. Section 22(3) caps the liability of each heir to the value of the share or part of the estate taken by him. Section 22(4) addresses the case where the heir is himself a dependant: his liability to contribute arises only if the value of his share exceeds what would have been awarded to him as a dependant.

The relationship between Section 19 and Section 22 is best read as one of overlapping but distinct remedies. Section 19 gives the widow a larger right against her father-in-law's coparcenary property; Section 22 gives every dependant a proportionate right against every heir, capped at the value of that heir's share. Where the husband bequeaths all his property under Section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act and thereby disinherits the widow, she may claim against the takers under Section 22.

Section 23 — Quantum of maintenance

Section 23 leaves the amount to the court's discretion, structured by enumerated factors. Section 23(1) lays down the principle of judicial discretion. Section 23(2) lists the considerations for awarding maintenance to a wife, children or aged or infirm parents:

1. The position and status of the parties.
2. The reasonable wants of the claimant.
3. If the claimant is living separately, whether the claimant is justified in doing so.
4. The value of the claimant's property and any income derived from such property, or from the claimant's own earnings or from any other source.
5. The number of persons entitled to maintenance.

Section 23(3) lists the considerations for awarding maintenance to dependants:

1. The net value of the estate of the deceased after providing for the payment of his debts.
2. The provisions, if any, made under the will of the deceased in favour of the dependant.
3. The degree of relationship between the two.
4. The reasonable wants of the dependant.
5. The past relations between the dependant and the deceased.
6. The value of the property of the dependant, and any income derived from such property, or from any other source.
7. The number of dependants entitled to maintenance under the Act.

The Supreme Court in Dr. Kulbhushan Kunwar v. Smt. Raj Kumari approved the Privy Council's observation in Mt. Ekradeshwari v. Homeshwar that the grant of maintenance depends on a gathering together of all the facts of the situation — the amount of free estate, the past life of the parties, the conditions and necessities and rights of members, and a reasonable view of the changes of circumstances likely in the future, regard always being had to the scale and mode of living, and to the age, habits, wants and class of life of the parties. The court can take judicial notice of the cost of living and of inflation so that the parties do not return to court repeatedly.

The 1/3rd-of-husband's-income rule of thumb has been followed in some High-Court decisions but is exactly that — a rule of thumb. In Meenu Chopra v. Deepak Chopra, where the husband was leading an opulent life, the Delhi High Court rejected his attempt to peg the wife's quantum to the modest means of her parental family: after marriage, the wife is entitled to the standard and style of the matrimonial home. Income tax returns are not conclusive proof of real income.

Overlap with Section 125 CrPC and Section 144 BNSS

The personal-law remedy under HAMA sits alongside the secular, summary remedy of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). Section 125 CrPC applies to people of all religions, has nothing to do with personal law, and serves the social purpose of preventing destitution and vagrancy. The HAMA quantum is typically larger and is a matured civil right; the Section 125 quantum is summary and is recoverable through magisterial process.

The overlap is doctrinally settled. Nanak Chand v. Chandra Kishore Aggarwala held that Section 125 CrPC has no relationship with personal law and does not displace HAMA. An order under Section 125 CrPC is not a bar to a HAMA claim. The rule against double recovery, however, applies: amounts paid under one set of proceedings are adjusted in the other. The Section 125 jurisdiction extends to the divorced wife who has not remarried — a class of person whose Section 18 HAMA claim is closed.

Overlap with Sections 24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act

Where matrimonial proceedings are pending, Sections 24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act provide for interim and permanent maintenance respectively. Section 18 HAMA can be invoked even while Hindu Marriage Act proceedings are pending. Section 25 HMA, after divorce, is the only door open to a wife whose Section 18 claim has closed by reason of the divorce.

The HMA route also accommodates the wife of a void marriage, whose Section 18 claim is doctrinally barred. Suresh Khullar v. Vijay Kumar read Section 18 protectively to fit such a wife in, but the safer route, where the marriage is declared null, remains Section 25 HMA. Section 26 HMA, in turn, governs the custody, maintenance and education of children in matrimonial proceedings.

Overlap with the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007

The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is a secular companion to Section 20(3). The 2007 Act applies to all parents and all senior citizens, irrespective of religion. Sections 4 and 5 cast an obligation on children or grandchildren who are not minors to maintain parents or grandparents who are unable to maintain themselves. The remedy is a tribunal-based summary procedure, designed to be cheaper and faster than civil suits. The maintenance was originally capped at Rs 10,000 per month. An application may be made by the parent or by an authorised person or organisation, and the tribunal may also take cognizance suo motu. The tribunal has a 90-day window to decide, extendable by 30 days for recorded reasons.

For the exam-aspirant the relationship is: HAMA Section 20(3) is the personal-law civil remedy; the 2007 Act is the secular tribunal remedy. They are concurrent; there is no exclusion of one by the other.

Charge, transfer and procedural points

Section 27 of HAMA provides that a dependant's claim for maintenance under the Act is not a charge on the estate of the deceased, unless the charge has been created by the will of the deceased, by a court decree, by agreement, or otherwise. The default position is therefore unsecured. Once a court decree creates a charge, however, the right cannot be defeated by subsequent alienation or partition. Section 28 protects the dependant against gratuitous transferees and transferees with notice; bona fide transferees for value without notice take free.

HAMA does not itself prescribe a forum or procedure; the claim is brought as a civil suit in a court of competent jurisdiction, governed by the Code of Civil Procedure. Maintenance runs from the date of the suit, not from the date of the order, so that delay does not defeat the claimant. Court-fee is governed by the Court Fees Act for civil-court proceedings; in a Family Court, the proceeding is initiated by an application and the fee is the nominal amount fixed for applications.

MCQ angle and exam pointers

The Section 18(2) grounds and the Section 18(3) forfeiture grounds are the highest-frequency MCQ targets. The seven 18(2) grounds — desertion, cruelty, virulent leprosy, any other wife living, concubine in or out of the house, husband's conversion, residuary justifiable cause — must be memorised in order, and the wife-side forfeiture grounds, unchastity and conversion, must be paired with them. Mid-difficulty questions will test the daughter-in-law remedy under Section 19: the three preconditions, the limitation to coparcenary property in the father-in-law's hands, the cessation on remarriage, and the Mitakshara-only operation of 19(2). Section 20 questions cluster around: the gender-neutral reading; the unmarried-daughter rule under 20(3) and its inclusion of marriage expenses; and the aged-or-infirm parent test. Section 21 dependant-list questions are pure list memory — wife and children are not on the list. Section 22 questions test the proportionality cap on heirs. Section 23 questions test the quantum factors. The cross-statute questions — HAMA versus Section 125 CrPC, HAMA versus Sections 24/25 HMA, HAMA versus the 2007 Senior Citizens Act — are the integration questions and the most productive practice ground. For deeper integration with succession, see our chapters on the general rules of succession in the case of males and females; for the broader cross-Act picture, our chapter on the cross-statute maintenance picture under Hindu law; and for the architectural map of the codifying statutes, the Hindu Law notes hub. The dependant-list logic under Section 21 also dovetails with the rules on disqualifications from succession and on stridhan and women's property rights, which condition the property a widow takes into the maintenance equation.