No Liability U/s.125 CrPC Upon Daughter-In-Law To Maintain Her Parents-In-Law: Allahabad High Court
The High Court was considering a criminal revision challenging the order of the Family Court arising out of proceedings under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Justice Madan Pal Singh, Allahabad High Court
While dismissing a revision filed by a couple who lost their son and claimed maintenance from their daughter-in-law, the Allahabad High Court has held that a daughter-in-law is not liable under Section 125 of the CrPC to maintain her parents-in-law.
The High Court was considering a criminal revision challenging the order of the Family Court arising out of proceedings under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, whereby the application filed by the revisionists seeking maintenance from their daughter-in-law (second opposite party) was rejected.
The Single Bench of Justice Madan Pal Singh held, “It is well settled that the right to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, now corresponding provisions under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, is a statutory right and is confined only to the categories of persons expressly mentioned therein. The legislature, in its wisdom, has not included parents-in-law within the ambit of the said provision. In other words, it is not the scheme of the legislature to fasten liability of maintenance upon a daughter-in-law towards her parents-in-law under the said provision.
Advocate Monika Pal represented the Petitioner, while Government Advocate represented the Respondent.
Arguments
It was the case of the revisionists that they were old, illiterate, and indigent parents of the deceased, who were wholly dependent upon their sole son during his lifetime. According to the revisionists, their daughter-in-law is employed as a Constable in the Uttar Pradesh Police, has sufficient independent income, and has also received all service and retirement benefits of the deceased. The revisionists thus emphasised the moral obligation of the daughter-in-law to maintain the aged parents-in-law.
Reasoning
Taking note of the fact that the revisionists are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the second opposite party, the Bench made it clear that Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is confined only to the categories of persons expressly mentioned therein, and parents-in-law are not included within the ambit of the said provision.
The Bench was of the view that the submission regarding succession to the property of the deceased did not fall for consideration in proceedings under Section 125 CrPC, as such issues are beyond the scope of summary maintenance proceedings.
“The concept of moral obligation, howsoever compelling it may appear, cannot be enforced as a legal obligation in the absence of a statutory mandate. Maintenance under the said provision can be claimed only by persons falling within the categories specifically enumerated therein”, the order read.
Thus, finding no illegality, perversity, or infirmity in the order passed by the Family Court, the Bench dismissed the criminal revision.
Cause Title: Rakesh Kumar And Another v. State of U.P. and Another (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:24683)
Appearance
Petitioner: Advocate Monika Pal
Opposite Party: Government Advocate, Advocate Rajesh Kumar Yadav