PRAYAGRAJ<\/em>: The Allahabad High Court<\/strong> has held that a daughter-in-law<\/strong> is not legally bound to provide maintenance to her parents-in-law<\/strong> under Section 125<\/strong> of the Criminal Procedure Code or Section 144<\/strong> of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The case came before Justice Madan Pal Singh<\/strong>, where an elderly couple filed a plea seeking maintenance from their daughter-in-law after the death of their son<\/strong>. They challenged an earlier order of the Family Court in Agra, which had already rejected their claim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The High Court explained that the right to claim maintenance is strictly based on law and only applies to specific categories of people clearly mentioned in the statute. Parents-in-law are not included in that list.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court clearly stated:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe 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.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The elderly parents argued that they were dependent on their son during his lifetime and are now left without support. They also claimed that their daughter-in-law, who works as a Constable in the Uttar Pradesh Police, has a stable income and has received all benefits after their son’s death.<\/p>\n\n\n\n They further tried to argue that even if not legally written, a moral responsibility<\/strong> should be treated as a legal duty.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, the Court rejected this argument and made it clear that emotional or moral expectations cannot be enforced through courts unless the law specifically provides for it. The Court emphasized that legal liability cannot be created based on sympathy or assumptions.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court also noted that there was no proof that the daughter-in-law got her job on compassionate grounds<\/strong>, which could have created a different context.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Additionally, the Court clarified that issues related to inheritance or rights over the deceased son’s property cannot be decided in maintenance<\/a> proceedings, as those are separate legal matters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n After examining all facts, the High Court found no error in the Family Court\u2019s earlier decision and dismissed the plea.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
Explanatory Table Of Laws & Sections Involved<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Law \/ Section<\/strong><\/td> Full Name<\/strong><\/td> What It Covers<\/strong><\/td> Key Legal Position in This Case<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> Section 144 BNSS<\/a><\/strong><\/td> Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023<\/td> Provides right to claim maintenance for specified dependents<\/td> Court held parents-in-law are not included<\/strong>, so no legal claim<\/td><\/tr> Section 125 CrPC<\/strong><\/td> Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973<\/td> Maintenance for wife, children, and parents<\/td> Only applies to listed categories, not in-laws<\/strong><\/td><\/tr> Summary Maintenance Proceedings<\/strong><\/td> Procedural concept under CrPC\/BNSS<\/td> Quick relief mechanism for dependents<\/td> Cannot decide complex issues like property or succession<\/td><\/tr> Compassionate Appointment (Contextual)<\/strong><\/td> Employment given after death of employee<\/td> Can sometimes create dependency-based obligations<\/td> Court found no evidence<\/strong> of such appointment here<\/td><\/tr> Succession Law (General Reference)<\/strong><\/td> Property rights after death<\/td> Determines inheritance of deceased\u2019s assets<\/td> Court clarified this issue is separate and not relevant<\/strong> here<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n Case Details<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
Counsels<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
Key Takeaways<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n