Maintenance Under Hindu Law — Wife, Children, Parents

A Hindu wife, child or aged parent who needs maintenance does not approach a single statute. Five overlapping regimes are available, each with its own forum, quantum logic, and burden of proof — and each interlocking with the others through a non-double-recovery rule. The litigant's first decision is not what the law says but which combination of regimes to invoke. This chapter is the integrative map: it stitches together the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act remedies, the matrimonial reliefs under the Hindu Marriage Act, the secular summary jurisdiction of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now BNSS), the protective civil-criminal hybrid of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005, and the Tribunal-based summary remedy of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007.

The synthesis is not academic. After Rajnesh v. Neha (2021), every maintenance proceeding in India — in any of the five regimes — runs through a single uniform Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities, decided on a single set of quantum criteria, with set-off across regimes. The five regimes therefore have one ceiling: a reasonable composite figure that reflects the spouse's status. The litigant who understands the ladder picks the right rung; the one who does not, sues five times for the same money.

The maintenance ladder — five regimes at a glance

Lawyers who write the same chapter on a single Section 125 form give the wrong answer to the right question. The right question is which regime to invoke first, which second, and which not at all.

1. HAMA Sections 18 to 23 — civil personal-law remedy. Filed in the civil court. Larger quantum, charge on immovable property, separate-residence grounds in Section 18(2). Available during the husband's lifetime.
2. HMA Sections 24 and 25 — interim maintenance pendente lite and permanent alimony at decree. Available only when an HMA matrimonial proceeding is on foot. See the chapter on alimony pendente lite, permanent alimony and maintenance for the full doctrine.
3. HMA Section 26 — custody, maintenance and education of minor children during the matrimonial proceeding. Treated separately in the chapter on custody, maintenance and education of children.
4. Section 125 BNSS (previously Section 125 CrPC) — secular, summary, social-welfare jurisdiction of the Magistrate. The 2001 amendment to the CrPC removed the Rs. 500 cap and the 2023 BNSS retains the same scheme. Quantum tends to be smaller than HAMA but the procedure is fast.
5. PWDVA Section 20 — monetary relief in a Domestic Violence Act application. Civil-criminal hybrid; broader than HMA/HAMA because the protected class includes women in marriage-like relationships, not only legally wedded wives.

Outside this five-rung ladder sits the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 — a Tribunal-based summary remedy for a parent or grandparent who is unable to maintain themselves. The Tribunal must decide within 90 days, can grant up to Rs. 10,000 per month (subject to State amendment), and the breach is enforceable by warrant and imprisonment up to one month under Section 10.

One unifying rule applies across all five regimes: a Hindu litigant cannot recover maintenance twice over. Sudeep Chaudhary v. Radha Chaudhary AIR 1999 SC 536 settled that what is paid under one regime is set off against another; the total quantum cannot exceed reasonable maintenance. The chapter on the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 places this rule in its statutory context.

HAMA — the civil personal-law remedy

The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1956 codifies what was previously a shastric obligation. Sections 18 to 23 cover wife, widowed daughter-in-law, children, aged parents, dependants, and the quantum determination. The full ingredients-level treatment is in the chapter on maintenance of wife, children and aged parents under HAMA; this section captures the architecture for cross-regime comparison.

Section 18 — wife

Section 18(1) confers an absolute right on a Hindu wife to be maintained by her husband during her lifetime, regardless of whether the husband owns any property. The obligation is personal and arises out of the matrimonial tie itself. Sub-section (2) lists the seven grounds on which the wife may live separately without forfeiting her claim — desertion, cruelty, virulent leprosy, the husband having another wife living, the husband keeping a concubine in the matrimonial home or habitually residing with one elsewhere, the husband ceasing to be a Hindu, and any other cause justifying separate residence. Sub-section (3) disqualifies the wife if she is unchaste or has ceased to be a Hindu by conversion.

Section 19 — widowed daughter-in-law

After the husband's death, the wife may claim maintenance from her father-in-law, but only if he has coparcenary property in his hands and only to the extent of that property. The liability is not personal — unlike the husband's liability under Section 18 — and ceases when the daughter-in-law remarries or obtains a share in the estate.

Section 20 — children and aged parents

Two innovations in Section 20 are routinely tested. First, the section equalises the obligation: under shastric Hindu law it was the son's burden, but Section 20(1) extends the duty to both sexes. Second, an unmarried daughter remains a dependant — distinct from a minor child — until married. The obligation under Section 20(3) read with Section 3(b) covers reasonable marriage expenses where the father has joint family property — see Chandra Kishore v. Nanak Chand AIR 1975 Del 175.

Sections 21, 22, 23 — dependants and quantum

Section 21 enumerates eleven dependants on whom the heirs of a deceased Hindu owe maintenance — the father, mother, widow, minor son, minor son of a predeceased son, etc. Section 22 caps that liability to the estate inherited; the heirs are not personally liable. Section 23 lists the discretionary quantum factors — the position and status of the parties, the reasonable wants of the claimant, the claimant's separate income, the value of the deceased's estate, the number of dependants. The chapter on stridhan and women's property rights connects Section 22 with the Hindu widow's converted absolute estate under Section 14 HSA.

HMA Sections 24 and 25 — matrimonial reliefs

Where any HMA proceeding is pending — restitution under Section 9, judicial separation under Section 10, divorce under Section 13 or mutual consent divorce under Section 13B, or even a void/voidable petition under Section 11 or 12 — either party may apply for interim maintenance.

The Section 24 application is not parasitic on the merits of the main petition. Chand Dhawan v. Jawaharlal Dhawan (1993) 3 SCC 406 held that even if the main divorce petition is unconditionally withdrawn, the wife's right to alimony pendente lite earned till that date survives — the order terminates with the proceeding, but the accrued claim is a statutory right that does not get extinguished. The 1976 amendment removed the gendered restriction; either spouse may apply.

Section 25 governs permanent alimony at the time of any decree under the Act, or at any time afterwards. The amount may be a gross sum or periodical payments and may be charged on the immovable property of the respondent. The order is subject to alteration if the circumstances of the parties change. U. Sree v. U. Srinivas AIR 2013 SC 415 upheld a permanent alimony of Rs. 50 lakhs to the wife and minor son of a noted musician — the court emphasising that the wife is entitled to live with dignity and comfort commensurate with the husband's status, not in penury.

HMA Section 26 — children during matrimonial proceedings

Section 26 empowers the court, in any HMA proceeding, to pass interim and final orders regarding the custody, maintenance and education of minor children, consistent with their wishes wherever possible. The detailed exposition is in the chapter on custody, maintenance and education of children under Section 26 HMA. The provision overlaps with Section 20 HAMA but is procedurally narrower — it bites only where matrimonial proceedings are pending or have been concluded; HAMA Section 20 has no such gateway and applies during the parent's lifetime irrespective of any divorce litigation.

Section 125 BNSS — the secular summary remedy

Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 — re-enacted as Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (commonly cited still as Section 125 BNSS in commentaries because of its functional identity) — is the most-used maintenance route in India because it is fast, cheap, and religion-neutral. The Magistrate may order a husband, father, son, or major child to pay a monthly sum to a wife unable to maintain herself, a legitimate or illegitimate minor child, a major child unable to maintain himself or herself by reason of physical or mental abnormality, or a parent unable to maintain himself or herself.

The 2001 amendment removed the Rs. 500 ceiling on monthly maintenance. Vimala v. Veeraswamy (1991) 2 SCC 375 held that the provision serves a social-welfare purpose, applies to people of all religions, and has no relationship with the personal law of the parties. The summary character of the proceeding was reaffirmed in Nagendrappa Natikar v. Neelamma AIR 2013 SC 1541 — Section 125 does not finally determine rights; it provides immediate relief against vagrancy and destitution.

Forfeiture grounds under Section 125(4): the wife is disentitled if she is living in adultery, refuses to live with her husband without sufficient cause, or where the parties live separately by mutual consent. "Living in adultery" denotes a continuous course of adulterous conduct, not a single act — see the line of authority running from Kista Pillai v. Amirthammal through to the present. A judicially separated wife is entitled to maintenance, but not where the decree of separation has been passed against her.

PWDVA Section 20 — monetary relief in domestic violence proceedings

The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 carved out a fifth route. Section 20 empowers the Magistrate, on a Section 12 application by an aggrieved person, to order monetary relief — covering loss of earnings, medical expenses, loss caused by destruction or removal of property, and maintenance in addition to or in lieu of an order under Section 125 CrPC or any other law. The relief is enforceable by attachment of salary or property.

The conceptual breakthrough is the definition of "aggrieved person" in Section 2(a). It is not confined to a legally wedded wife; Section 2(f) defines a "domestic relationship" to include a relationship in the nature of marriage. D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010) 10 SCC 469 set out the four tests for a relationship in the nature of marriage — the couple must hold themselves out to society as akin to spouses, must have lived together for a significant period, must be of legal age and unmarried, and must have voluntarily cohabited. A woman who satisfies the Velusamy tests can claim monetary relief under Section 20 PWDVA even though she would fail the "legally wedded wife" test under HAMA, HMA and Section 125.

The Rajnesh v. Neha framework — uniformity across the ladder

For decades the five regimes ran on parallel tracks with inconsistent procedure and divergent quantum. Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324, a two-judge but binding decision, ended the fragmentation. The Supreme Court issued directions covering every maintenance proceeding in any forum.

Uniform Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities. The Court framed a model affidavit, annexed in two formats (urban-salaried and self-employed), to be filed by both parties at the inception of any maintenance proceeding under Section 125 CrPC, HMA Sections 24 and 25, HAMA Sections 18 to 22, the PWDVA, or the Senior Citizens Act. Non-disclosure invites adverse inference; the burden rests on the spouse with the means.

Quantum criteria. The judgment lists the factors that any forum must weigh: status of the parties, reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children, qualifications and employment status of both parties, independent income or assets owned by the applicant, the standard of living to which the family was accustomed in the matrimonial home, employment-related sacrifices made for the family, reasonable litigation cost for a non-working wife, and the spouse's actual earnings together with liabilities.

Set-off across regimes. The Court reaffirmed Sudeep Chaudhary v. Radha Chaudhary AIR 1999 SC 536 — adjustment of amounts already paid in another maintenance proceeding is mandatory while fixing quantum. The applicant must disclose every prior maintenance order in the affidavit; the court fixes a single reasonable composite figure.

Date from which maintenance is awarded. Maintenance ordinarily runs from the date of application, not the date of the order; arrears may be paid in equal monthly instalments to soften the impact. Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena (2015) 6 SCC 353 had earlier laid down that an interim maintenance application should be decided within sixty days — the Rajnesh framework operationalises that timeline.

Enforcement. Non-payment can be enforced by Section 128 BNSS / Section 125(3) CrPC for warrants of arrest in default; PWDVA Section 28 read with the Magistrate's contempt jurisdiction; Senior Citizens Act Section 10; and Order 21 CPC for HMA and HAMA decrees. The aggrieved spouse may also seek attachment of salary or property.

The status of the second wife

Whether a second wife may claim maintenance is the most-litigated overlap question in this area. The answer turns on the regime invoked.

Section 125 CrPC / BNSS. The Supreme Court in Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav AIR 1988 SC 644 held that the abolition of polygamy by Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 means a second marriage during the subsistence of the first is null and void; the second "wife" is not a wife at all and cannot claim under Section 125. Khem Chand Om Prakash Sharma v. State of Gujarat (2000) 3 SCC 753 reiterated that a second wife is not entitled, though her children are.

HAMA Section 18. The orthodox position is that a void marriage produces no Hindu wife within the meaning of Section 18(1). But a wider reading has emerged through Suresh Khullar v. Vijay Kumar Khullar AIR 2008 Del 1 (DB) and Narinder Pal Kaur v. Manjeet Singh AIR 2008 Del 7 — where the husband suppressed the fact of the first marriage and the second "wife" lived with him as such for years in good faith, the Court allowed maintenance under Section 18, taking support from the protective scheme of the PWDVA and from Section 25 HMA which permits a wife of a void marriage to claim alimony when the marriage is annulled.

PWDVA. The marriage-like relationship route under Section 2(f) read with the Velusamy tests is the cleanest path. A second "wife" who satisfies Velusamy obtains monetary relief and a residence order without having to prove the validity of the marriage at all. This is now the standard route for second-wife maintenance.

The chapter on void marriages under Section 11 HMA sets out the underlying invalidity; the chapter on voidable marriages under Section 12 covers fraud and impotency, both of which overlap with the bigamous-second-marriage fact-pattern.

Aged parents — three pathways

An elderly parent who needs support has three forums.

1. HAMA Section 20(3) — civil suit for maintenance against the son or daughter; the parent must be unable to maintain himself or herself out of own earnings or property. Quantum follows Section 23.
2. Section 125 BNSS — explicit obligation under clause (d) of Section 125(1) to maintain the father or mother; rare in practice but available, with the same summary procedure as a wife's claim.
3. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 — Tribunal-based summary remedy. Section 4 casts the obligation on children or grandchildren who are not minors. The application is filed under Section 5 before the Tribunal constituted under Section 7. The Tribunal must conclude the inquiry within 90 days, extendable by 30 in exceptional circumstances. The maximum monthly maintenance is Rs. 10,000 (subject to State amendment). Section 9 provides for appeal; Section 10 imposes imprisonment up to one month for non-compliance. The Senior Citizens Act is a one-stop shop where the parent has fallen into actual destitution and needs immediate enforcement.

The three pathways are alternative, not cumulative; the Sudeep Chaudhary set-off rule applies in full force to parental maintenance as well.

Quantum — what is "reasonable"?

The leading exposition on quantum in matrimonial proceedings is Vinny Parmvir Parmar v. Parmvir Parmar AIR 2011 SC 2748 — where the wife had resigned an air-hostess position post-marriage and the husband was a senior airline pilot with future-employment prospects, the Supreme Court enhanced alimony from Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 40,000. The reasoning is generalisable. Quantum is not arithmetic; it is an attempt to reproduce, so far as money can, the standard of living the wife enjoyed in the matrimonial home — see Komalam Amma v. Kumara Pillai Raghavan Pillai AIR 2009 SC 636, which held that maintenance must include a basic need for a roof over the head and reflect the matrimonial standard.

The factors collected from the case-law and codified in Section 23 HAMA, Section 125(2) CrPC, and the Rajnesh framework are: (i) status and lifestyle of the parties, (ii) the husband's actual income, (iii) the wife's own resources, separate income, and earning capacity, (iv) age and health, (v) number of dependants on each side, (vi) educational and medical needs of the children, (vii) reasonable litigation cost, (viii) conduct of the parties, and (ix) inflation. Courts take judicial notice of the cost of living so that the parties need not return to court repeatedly — Veena Kalia v. Jatinder Nath Kalia AIR 1996 Del 34. Chand Dhawan v. Jawaharlal Dhawan (1993) 3 SCC 406 emphasises that the obligation persists irrespective of the formal status of the matrimonial proceeding.

One-third of the husband's net income to the wife is a rule of thumb, not a rule of law. Where the husband is indigent, a smaller proportion suffices; where the marriage was lavish, a larger sum is appropriate. U. Sree v. U. Srinivas remains the high-water mark — Rs. 50 lakhs as permanent alimony where the husband had earned name and fame in his profession.

Mode of payment, alteration, and enforcement

Maintenance may be ordered as a lump sum or as periodical (usually monthly) payments. A lump sum extinguishes future claims; a periodical order is liable to revision. Both Section 25(2) HMA and Section 127 CrPC (now Section 146 BNSS) allow the order to be increased, decreased, or cancelled on a change in circumstances — re-marriage of the wife, a substantial change in the husband's income, or the wife becoming able to maintain herself.

Enforcement tracks the regime:

• HMA and HAMA decrees execute under Order 21 CPC; the immovable property of the respondent may be charged.
• Section 125 CrPC / BNSS orders execute under Section 125(3) CrPC / Section 128 BNSS — warrant for levying the amount, imprisonment up to one month for each breach, application within one year of due date.
• PWDVA Section 20 orders execute under Section 28 PWDVA, with breach attracting Section 31 (imprisonment up to one year and/or fine up to Rs. 20,000).
• Senior Citizens Act orders execute under Section 10 — Tribunal warrant for levy, imprisonment up to one month or until payment.

The ladder produces real money only when enforcement bites. Most reported quantum failures are in fact enforcement failures.

Comparative table — the five regimes side by side

The following table is a pedagogical summary; it should not be read as a substitute for the statute or the case-law.

Regime	Eligibility	Forum	Quantum logic	Enforcement
HAMA Sections 18 to 23	Hindu wife, widow, minor children, aged parents, dependants of deceased	Civil court	Status-based, charge on immovable property; large quantum	Order 21 CPC
HMA Sections 24 and 25	Either spouse where any HMA proceeding is pending	District court / Family court hearing the HMA petition	Status, dependants, income; lump sum or periodical	Order 21 CPC; charge on immovable property
HMA Section 26	Minor children of the spouses, during HMA proceeding	Same court hearing the HMA petition	Welfare of the child; education and custody included	Order 21 CPC
Section 125 CrPC / BNSS	Wife (legally wedded), minor child, disabled major child, aged parents	Magistrate of the first class	Summary; reasonable amount; cap removed in 2001	Warrant + imprisonment up to one month
PWDVA Section 20	Aggrieved person — wife or woman in marriage-like relationship	Judicial Magistrate	Loss of earnings, medical, property loss, maintenance	Section 28 PWDVA; breach under Section 31
Senior Citizens Act 2007	Senior citizen / parent unable to maintain self	Tribunal under Section 7	Up to Rs. 10,000 per month (State variation)	Section 10 — warrant + imprisonment up to one month

Cross-regime tactical choice — which to file first

For a Hindu wife living separately during the marriage and not yet in matrimonial proceedings, the optimal sequence is usually: (i) Section 125 BNSS for immediate interim relief (decided fast, religion-neutral); (ii) HAMA Section 18 in parallel in the civil court for a larger figure backed by a charge on immovable property; (iii) if there is violence or cohabitation in the matrimonial home, PWDVA Section 20 together with a Section 19 residence order. The Rajnesh framework forces all three forums to look at the same disclosure affidavit and to set off any prior award.

For a wife already in HMA divorce proceedings, the route is Section 24 HMA for pendente lite relief (decided within sixty days per Bhuwan Mohan Singh) and Section 25 HMA for permanent alimony at decree, with HAMA reserved as a fallback if the HMA petition is dismissed.

For a child, Section 26 HMA while the matrimonial proceeding is on; HAMA Section 20 outside any matrimonial proceeding; Section 125 BNSS as a parallel summary route. The chapter on welfare of the minor as paramount consideration covers the overlap with custody.

For aged parents, the Senior Citizens Act 2007 Tribunal is the fastest forum; HAMA Section 20(3) the route for larger quantum where there is property to charge; Section 125 BNSS the criminal-court alternative. The chapter on joint Hindu family — Karta and coparcenary ties parental maintenance into the pious-obligation doctrine still relevant for ancestral debt.

For deeper context on the codified Hindu personal-law framework — including the architecture of HMA, HSA, HMG, and HAMA, the post-2005 position on coparcenary, and how the maintenance ladder fits within the broader scheme — see the Hindu Law notes hub.

MCQ angles

Examiners gravitate to the cross-regime overlaps because that is where the doctrine actually lives.

• The Sudeep Chaudhary set-off rule and how it interacts with the Rajnesh v. Neha uniform-affidavit framework.
• The status of the second wife under Section 125 (Yamunabai) versus PWDVA (Velusamy) — the same litigant, two outcomes.
• The 60-day timeline for interim maintenance under Bhuwan Mohan Singh.
• The Senior Citizens Act forum — Tribunal not Magistrate, 90-day inquiry, Rs. 10,000 cap, one-month imprisonment for breach.
• HAMA versus Section 125 quantum logic — civil-court status-based versus summary social-welfare floor.
• Living-in-adultery as a forfeiture ground under Section 125(4) — present continuous tense, single act insufficient.

The chapter on landmark Hindu Law cases consolidates the authorities tested here. The chapter on divorce under Section 13 sits next to this one because cruelty as a Section 13 ground and cruelty as a Section 18(2) ground share the same conduct but yield different reliefs.

Frequently asked questions

Can a Hindu wife claim maintenance simultaneously under HAMA Section 18, Section 125 BNSS, and PWDVA Section 20?

Yes — the three remedies are independent and can be pursued in parallel, but the Sudeep Chaudhary v. Radha Chaudhary AIR 1999 SC 536 set-off rule applies. Whatever is paid under one regime is adjusted against the others. The Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) directions reinforce this by requiring the applicant to disclose every prior or pending maintenance proceeding in the uniform affidavit, and by directing every forum to fix a single reasonable composite figure. Filing in parallel is tactically useful — Section 125 is fast, HAMA permits larger quantum and a charge on property, PWDVA covers residence and broader monetary relief — but recovery cannot exceed reasonable maintenance.

Is a second wife of a void Hindu marriage entitled to maintenance?

Under Section 125 CrPC / BNSS, no — Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav AIR 1988 SC 644 held that the second marriage during a subsisting first marriage is void and the second "wife" is not a wife within Section 125. Under HAMA Section 18 the orthodox view is the same, though Suresh Khullar v. Vijay Kumar Khullar (2008 Del DB) read the section liberally where the husband suppressed the fact of the first marriage. Under PWDVA she can obtain monetary relief if she meets the D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010) 10 SCC 469 tests for a marriage-like relationship — duration, holding out as spouses, capacity, voluntary cohabitation. PWDVA is now the standard route.

What is the Rajnesh v. Neha framework for maintenance proceedings?

Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 issued binding directions covering every maintenance proceeding in any forum. Both parties must file a uniform Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities at the inception of the proceeding — the Court annexed model formats. Quantum is decided on a single set of criteria — status, reasonable needs, qualifications, independent income, standard of living in the matrimonial home, employment-related sacrifices, litigation cost, actual earnings and liabilities. Set-off across regimes is mandatory. Maintenance ordinarily runs from the date of application; arrears are paid in instalments. Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena (2015) 6 SCC 353 fixes a 60-day timeline for interim relief.

What is "living in adultery" under Section 125(4)?

Section 125(4) disentitles a wife who is living in adultery, refuses to live with her husband without sufficient cause, or where the parties separate by mutual consent. "Living in adultery" denotes a continuous course of adulterous conduct — a quasi-permanent union — not a single act. The phrase is in the present continuous tense. A wife who in the past committed adultery but had stopped by the date of the maintenance application is entitled to claim. A single instance of adultery may ground judicial separation under HMA Section 10 but does not bar a Section 125 claim. The husband bears the burden of proving ongoing adultery.

How does the Senior Citizens Act 2007 differ from HAMA Section 20(3)?

Both protect aged parents, but the procedure and quantum differ. HAMA Section 20(3) is a civil suit before the civil court — slower, but can yield larger quantum charged on the child's property under Section 23, and has no monetary cap. The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 establishes a Tribunal under Section 7 that must conclude the inquiry within 90 days (extendable by 30), can grant up to Rs. 10,000 per month (subject to State amendment), and enforces orders by warrant under Section 10 with imprisonment up to one month for breach. The Senior Citizens Act is the destitution-rescue forum; HAMA is the better choice when there is property to charge.

Is the Section 24 HMA right available to a husband?

Yes. Section 24 was originally drafted in gender-neutral terms; the 1976 amendment made the gender-neutrality express by allowing either the wife or the husband to apply. The applicant must show no independent income sufficient for support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding. The court considers the applicant's own income and the respondent's income. In practice the application is most often filed by the wife, but a husband without independent means may invoke Section 24 against an earning wife. The relief survives unconditional withdrawal of the main petition only for amounts already accrued — Chand Dhawan v. Jawaharlal Dhawan (1993) 3 SCC 406.