Widow Seeks Maintenance Arrears Owed By Deceased Husband From Father-In-Law: Allahabad HC Stays Recovery Warrant

The Allahabad High Court recently stayed a recovery warrant issued by a Court against a father-in-law regarding the payment of maintenance arrears owed by his deceased son (during his lifetime) towards his widowed daughter-in-law.

A bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra passed this interim, granting relief to the revisionist-Father-in-law. The single judge, however, directed him to deposit half of the amount in question with the lower court to keep the stay order in effect.

Briefly put, respondent no. 2 is the widowed daughter-in-law of the revisionist. In 2016, she filed an application under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance from her husband (son of the revisionist) during his lifetime. She was also awarded Rs. 3,000/- monthly as interim maintenance.

During the pendency of the said maintenance case, the husband died (in November 2023). The wife then filed another case u/s 125 CrPC seeking maintenance from the Father-in-Law (Revisionist). 

This case was, however, dismissed by the family court in August 2024, holding that she was not entitled to seek maintenance from her father-in-law.

Therefore, she filed another case for recovery of Rs. 1,16,000/- from Father-in-Law as arrears of maintenance due during the period when her husband was alive.

This application was allowed in March 2025. In March 2026, a recovery warrant was also issued against him.

Importantly, the order was passed on the ground that in the event the husband of hers had been alive, she would have been the absolute owner of the movable and immovable property of her husband.

This order, as well as the recovery warrant, has been challenged before the HC in the present proceedings.

Before the HC, the counsel for the revisionist submitted that though the widowed daughter-in-law claimed to be unemployed, she is actually working at a Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya on a contract basis.

It was also submitted that her husband had left no property movable or immovable behind him on his death.

Against the backdrop of these submissions, the bench issued notice to respondent no. 2 to file an objection/counter-affidavit, if any.

Furthermore, listing the case on May 20, the bench stayed the recovery warrant issued against the revisionist, provided he deposits half of the amount covered in the recovery warrant within three weeks.