Karnataka High Court’s Response to Whether Section 125, CrPC Allows Maintenance Claim for Daughter-in-Law from Her In-Laws

The High Court answered the question in negative pointing out that Section 125, CrPC envisages that wives, parents and minor children can claim for maintenance.

Karnataka High Court: In examining the present review petition lodged under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act, 1984, challenging the legality of the Magistrate’s decision to award maintenance to the petitioners’ daughter-in-law and her children under Section 125 of the CrPC, Justice V. Srishananda and the Bench closely scrutinized Section 125 of the CrPC. The court determined that a daughter-in-law cannot make a claim against her parents-in-law under this provision. The legal provisions only allow a wife to claim maintenance, excluding daughter-in-laws.

Background and Arguments: The respondent and her children filed a petition under Section 125 of the CrPC seeking maintenance due to the alleged failure of her parents-in-law to support them after her husband’s death. The Magistrate granted Rs. 20,000 per month to the wife and Rs. 5,000 to the children. In response, the parents-in-law filed a revision petition challenging the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to entertain the petition under Section 125 of the CrPC.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to hear the respondent’s petition under Section 125, CrPC. Conversely, the respondents contended that the maintenance grant was justified as the petitioners failed to support the respondent and her children after her husband’s demise.

Court’s Evaluation: The Court carefully examined Section 125, CrPC, which pertains to “Order for maintenance of wives, children, and parents.” Upon meticulous scrutiny, the Court concluded that a daughter-in-law cannot claim maintenance from her parents-in-law under this provision. It emphasized that Section 125, CrPC only allows wives and minor children to claim maintenance, and parents can seek maintenance from their adult children.

Based on this interpretation, the Court overturned the decision in favor of the respondents.