Moral vs legal: Why Allahabad HC refused to force woman to pay maintenance to her parents-in-law after husband’s death

A single bench of Justice Madan Pal Singh, while hearing the petition and the prayer, observed, “It is well settled that the right to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), now corresponding provisions under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 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,” observed the bench.

Revision petition against family court order

The couple approached the high court with a revision petition challenging the judgment of the principal judge, family court, Agra, passed on August 21 last year, rejecting their application seeking maintenance from the daughter-in-law.

The counsel for the petitioners submitted before the court that the family court order is illegal, arbitrary, and suffers from a lack of application of the judicial mind. It was argued that the couple are old, illiterate, and indigent and were wholly dependent upon their only son during his lifetime.

It was further submitted that the marriage of the couple’s son was solemnised on April 26, 2016 and that he died on March 31, 2021. The couple mentioned in the petition that their daughter-in-law is employed as a constable in the Uttar Pradesh Police (currently posted in Kanpur). They further contended that she has sufficient independent income, and also received all the service and retirement benefits of the deceased.

The counsel emphasised the moral obligation of the daughter-in-law to care for aged parents-in-law (over 65), which, according to the petitioners, should be treated as a legal obligation.

The counsel for the daughter-in-law opposed the revision, submitting that the order passed by the family court is strictly in accordance with the law and does not warrant any interference by the high court.

After hearing the submissions, the bench of Justice Singh observed that there is nothing on record to indicate that the employment secured by the daughter-in-law was on compassionate grounds. The submission regarding succession to the property of the deceased also does not fall for consideration in proceedings under Section 125 of CrPC/corresponding provisions, as such issues are beyond the scope of summary maintenance proceedings, the bench observed.

In its order, the court stated, “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.”

“In view of the above legal position, this court finds no illegality, perversity, or infirmity in the order dated 21.08.2025 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Agra. The criminal revision lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed,” the order states further.

Speaking to The Indian Express, the counsel for the old couple, Monika Pal, said she will now file an application before the district magistrate (DM) of Agra under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act seeking maintenance for the old couple from the daughter-in-law.

Pal said that if the DM office does not grant relief, she will approach the HC, citing provisions of the Act that provide relief for maintenance to parents-in-law. She said that the couple’s son was also a police constable, and the cause of his death could not be ascertained then.