22. MAINTENANCE OF DEPENDENTS, -

1. Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) the heirs of a deceased Hindu are bound to maintain the dependants of the deceased out of the estate inherited by them from the deceased.

2. Where a dependant has not obtained, by testamentary or intestate-succession, any share in the estate of a Hindu dying after the commencement of this Act, the dependant shall be entitled, subject to the provisions of this Act, to maintenance from those who take the estate.

3. The liability of each of the persons who takes the estate shall be in proportion to the value of the share or part of the estate taken by him or her.

4. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) or sub-section (3), no person who is himself or herself a dependant shall be liable to contribute to the maintenance of others, if he or she has obtained a share or part, the value of which is, or would, if the liability to contribute were enforced, become less than what would be awarded to him or her by way of maintenance under this Act.

GENERAL RULES – SEC 22 HAMA

The following general rules relating to the right of maintenance of dependents may be noted:

1. The obligation is linked to the estate and not to the person. (Section 22(1))

Therefore, the maintenance of dependents is not a personal obligation.

The obligation is also limited to the extent to which the heir has the estate of the deceased in his or her hands. (Section 22(3))

For instance, a Hindu dies intestate leaving behind a mother, a widow, and a son. All the three will take a share in the estate of the deceased.

All the three are technically dependents, but since each gets a share, none of them can claim maintenance as dependent against the others.

If A dies leaving behind a will under which he bequeaths all his property to his son. He leaves behind a son, widow and mother.

In this case widow and mother as dependents can claim maintenance against the estate of the deceased in the hands of the son.

2. The liability of the heirs who take the property of the deceased is not a joint liability.

The liability of each heir is an individual liability in proportion of the value of the share of the estate, inherited by him or her. This is made clear by sub-section (3) of S. 22. The sub-section lays down that "the liability of each of the persons who take the estate shall be in proportion to the value of the share of the estate taken by him."

3. Sub-section (4) of S. 22 imposes another limitation on the liability to maintain.

This provision may be explained by an illustration.

Under the will of a Hindu, his widow takes a share in the estate, yielding an annual income of Rs. 500.

This amount is just sufficient to maintain her.

Now suppose, there is a mother of the deceased Hindu who has got no share in the estate. Both are dependents under S. 21 of the Act.

The widow has no obligation to provide maintenance to the mother.

SUB-SECTION (1)

Under sub-section (1) of Section 22 of the Act, the dependents of the deceased are entitled to be maintained by the heirs of the deceased out of the estate inherited by them.

This sub-section applies to the dependent of a person who had died before 21st of December, 1956.

According to sub-section (3) the liability of each of the persons inheriting the estate of the deceased would be liable proportionate to the share which they get as heirs.

Sub-section (2) covers those cases of the dependants of a person who die after passing of the present Act (i.e., 21st December, 1956) who do not succeed to any share or part of the estate of the deceased at his death, by reason, that they have not been given any share by Will or that they have been excluded on account of remoteness of their relations with the deceased.

The liability of the persons who took the estate is in this case also in proportion to the total share or part of the estate taken by him or her.

Sections 21 and 22 read together are intended to create an additional liability of maintenance on a moral consideration on certain relations of the dependants.

These sections do not in any way affect the general rule of Hindu law that where a husband leaves share in a joint Hindu family property, his widow is entitled to maintenance out of it from those coparceners who hold that by survivorship.

In Ratnabai v. Meerabai, the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that Sections 21 and 22 of the Act do not in any way abridge the pre-existing rights of maintenance holders and these provisions of the Act are prospective and apply only to the estate of Hindu whose death takes place after the commencement of this Act.

Though 'sister' does not find place in the list of 'dependants' in Section 21, it would not deprive the sister of getting her maintenance from her brother out of the property left by her father where she does not inherit the property from her father as an heir.

The settled position of law is that an heir is legally bound to provide, out of the estate which descends to him, maintenance for those persons whom the late proprietor was legally or normally bound to maintain.