Prayagraj, March 29 The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a daughter-in-law is not legally obligated to maintain her in-laws under Section 125 of the CrPC – now Section 144 of the BNSS.
In a recent order, Justice Madan Pal Singh observed that the right to claim maintenance is a statutory right and is limited only to the categories of persons expressly mentioned in the section itself, and in-laws do not fall within that category.
The court said that a moral obligation, however compelling it may appear, cannot be enforced as a legal obligation in the absence of a statutory mandate.
Dismissing a revision petition filed by an elderly couple against their daughter-in-law, the court said, “The legislature, in its wisdom, has not included in-laws within the ambit of this provision. In other words, it is not the legislature's intention to impose a maintenance obligation on a daughter-in-law towards her in-laws under this provision.”
The couple had moved the high court challenging an order passed by a family court in Agra on August 2025, which rejected their application seeking maintenance under Section 144 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
The couple submitted that they were elderly, illiterate, indigent, and wholly dependent on their deceased son during his lifetime.
They contended that their daughter-in-law, a constable with the Uttar Pradesh Police, had sufficient independent income in addition to receiving all service and retirement benefits from her deceased husband.
They also argued that the daughter-in-law's "moral obligation" to maintain her aged in-laws should be treated as a legal obligation.
The court, however, rejected this contention, noting that there was nothing on record to indicate that the daughter-in-law's police employment was secured on compassionate grounds.
The court also clarified that submissions regarding the succession to the deceased son's property did not fall for consideration in such summary maintenance proceedings.