In a judgment that clarifies the enforceability of maintenance decrees, the Bombay High Court has ruled on June 15 that while a widow can continue to receive maintenance from her deceased husband’s estate based on an existing decree, she cannot seek an enhancement of that amount from the estate or the legal heirs. The court distinguished between the continuation of a vested right and the creation of a new liability.
A division Bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande delivered the ruling on a petition filed by a widow. The petitioner sought the continuation of monthly maintenance from the estate of her husband, who died in 2012. The maintenance was originally granted by a Bandra Family Court order in 1999, which directed the husband to pay her ₹6,000 per month. The couple had no children, and the husband’s property passed to his siblings, who opposed the widow’s claim.
The court held that a maintenance decree does not extinguish upon the husband’s death. The estate or legal heirs remain liable for pending arrears and ongoing payments as per the terms of the decree. The bench observed that such a decree is executable against the husband’s estate, whether or not a charge was created on the property. The death of the husband does not affect a finalized maintenance decree, and the estate can be proceeded against for the realization of maintenance dues for the post-death period.
The court explained that the right of a wife to receive alimony or maintenance is a personal and vested right, which imposes a corresponding duty on a specific obligor. During the husband’s lifetime, he is under a personal obligation to maintain his wife. On his death, that obligation fastens to his property in the hands of an heir or legal representative. The court noted that this right is personal to the wife and extinguishes with her death; she cannot transfer this right.
On the issue of enhancement, the court clarified that Section 37 of the Special Marriage Act, which is similar to provisions in the Hindu Marriage Act, contemplates a fresh judicial determination based on the change in circumstances of either party. In a situation where the husband is deceased, the key component of this judicial exercise the husband’s ability to pay is absent. The bench held that a claim for enhanced maintenance cannot be made against legal heirs who have no personal duty to maintain the ex-wife.
The judges reasoned that allowing enhancement would result in absurdity and uncertainty. The determination of an enhancement claim based on the ex-wife’s needs would lack the other side of the equation, which is the husband’s ability to pay. Furthermore, if enhancement is based on the growth of the estate, the legal heirs would be treated unfairly if that growth is attributable to their own efforts. Allowing such claims could prevent heirs from dealing freely with inherited property and would keep the estate perpetually open to litigation.
The bench concluded that while the wife’s right to receive maintenance from the estate is valid, her claim for enhancement against the legal heirs under Section 37 of the Special Marriage Act cannot be entertained. With these observations, the bench disposed of the plea. 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.
Published - June 18, 2026 04:45 am IST
Source: The Hindu - India News
