Bombay High Court Rules Widow Cannot Seek Enhanced Maintenance From Heirs
On June 15, the Bombay High Court ruled that a widow can continue to receive maintenance from her deceased husband's estate based on an existing decree from a Bandra Family Court, but she cannot seek an enhancement of that amount from the estate or his legal heirs. The Division Bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande delivered the ruling, clarifying the limits of maintenance claims after a husband's death.
The case originated from a petition filed by a widow whose husband died in 2012. The couple had no children, and the husband’s property passed to his siblings, who are his legal heirs. The siblings had opposed the widow's claim to continue receiving her monthly maintenance.
The monthly maintenance of ₹6,000 was originally granted to the widow by a Bandra Family Court order in 1999. Following her husband's death, she sought the continuation of these payments from his estate, as well as an enhancement of the maintenance amount.
The High Court bench ruled that a maintenance decree does not extinguish upon the husband's death. The court held that the estate or legal heirs remain liable for pending arrears and ongoing payments under the terms of the existing decree. This decree remains executable against the husband's estate, regardless of whether a charge was created on the property.
However, the court drew a distinction between continuing a vested right and creating a new liability. The judges clarified that a claim for enhanced maintenance cannot be made against legal heirs. Under Section 37 of the Special Marriage Act, an enhancement requires a judicial determination of the husband's ability to pay, which is impossible after his death.
The judges reasoned that allowing an enhancement against legal heirs would lead to unfairness, especially if the estate's growth was due to the heirs' own efforts. It would also prevent heirs from freely dealing with inherited property and keep estates perpetually open to litigation.
With these observations, the bench disposed of the plea, allowing the maintenance to continue but denying the enhancement. Senior Advocate Deepa Chawan was appointed as Amicus Curiae for the wife, while Advocates Dr. Pradip Chavan and Shweta Borhade represented the husband’s siblings.
