In-Laws Cannot Claim Maintenance From Daughter-in-Law Under Section 125 CrPC: Allahabad High Court

Parents-in-law cannot claim maintenance from daughter-in-law under Section 125 CrPC (corresponding to Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita), the Allahabad High Court recently held while dismissing a criminal revision filed by an elderly couple seeking financial support from their widowed daughter-in-law.

Court upheld the order of the family court, Agra dated August 21, 2025, which had rejected the couple’s plea for maintenance, finding no legal basis to fasten such liability on the daughter-in-law.

The revisionists, Rakesh Kumar and another, had approached the high court contending that they were aged, illiterate and financially dependent on their deceased son, Pravesh Kumar, during his lifetime. They submitted that after their son’s death on March 31, 2021, they were left without any means of sustenance.

It was argued that the deceased had married opposite party no. 2 (the daughter-in-law) on April 26, 2016, and that she is currently employed as a constable in the Uttar Pradesh Police, earning sufficient income. The revisionists further claimed that she had received all service-related and retiral benefits of their son, and therefore, was financially capable of maintaining them.

Counsel for the revisionists also pressed the argument that a daughter-in-law has a moral obligation to take care of her parents-in-law, especially when they are dependent and have no other source of income. It was urged that such moral responsibility should be recognised as a legal obligation under maintenance law.

Opposing the plea, counsel for the daughter-in-law submitted that the family court had correctly applied the law and that there was no provision under which parents-in-law could claim maintenance from a daughter-in-law.

The high court, after hearing the parties and examining the record, noted that it was an admitted position that the applicants were the parents-in-law of the opposite party. Court then proceeded to examine whether such a relationship falls within the statutory framework governing maintenance.

Court observed that the right to claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, now reflected as Section 144 under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, is a statutory right and is confined strictly to the categories expressly mentioned in the provision. These categories do not include parents-in-law.

Emphasising the legislative intent, court held that the statute does not envisage imposing a legal obligation on a daughter-in-law to maintain her parents-in-law. It clarified that maintenance claims can only be entertained where the claimant falls within the defined classes under the law.

Addressing the argument regarding the financial status of the daughter-in-law, court noted that there was nothing on record to show that her employment was secured on compassionate grounds following her husband’s death. It further held that issues relating to succession or entitlement to the deceased’s property cannot be adjudicated in summary maintenance proceedings, as such questions lie outside their scope.

On the plea of moral obligation, court made it clear that while such considerations may carry emotional or social weight, they cannot be enforced in a court of law unless backed by a statutory provision.

“The concept of moral obligation, howsoever compelling it may appear, cannot be enforced as a legal obligation in the absence of a statutory mandate,” court observed.

Finding no illegality, perversity or infirmity in the family court’s order, the high court concluded that the revision lacked merit and dismissed it.

Case Title: Rakesh Kumar And Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Order Date: February 4, 2026

Bench: Justice Madan Pal Singh