Widowed daughter-in-law not liable to maintain parents-in-law under Section 125 CrPC: Bombay High Court

The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court recently held that the parents-in-laws cannot claim maintenance from a widowed daughter-in-law under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) [Shobha Sanjay Tidke vs Kishanrao Ramrao Tidke]..Single-judge Justice Kishore Sant quashed the orders of a Nyayadhikari Gram Nyayalaya, which had ordered one Shobha Tidke to maintain her old parents-in-law under Section 125. The High Court noted that the provisions of Section 125 only allow legitimate, illegitimate children, major or physically disabled children and old parents (father and mother) to claim maintenance and it does not mention parents-in-law as "relatives" eligible for maintenance by a widowed woman. "Reading of the Section 125, it is clear that the father-in-law and mother-in-law are not mentioned in the said Section. Even for the Clause (a) to (d), those are qualified by further wording as unable to maintain himself or herself," the Court observed in its order passed on April 12. The Court noted that a similar question had come up before the High Court in a separate case, wherein the Court clearly held that the parents-in-law will not be entitled to claim maintenance from their widowed daughter-in-law. "It is held that it is not the scheme of legislature and the legislature has not included parents-in-law in Section 125. The list given of the relations is exhaustive and there is no scope for any other interpretation," the bench held. .As per the facts of the case, the petitioner Shobha's husband was working as a conductor with the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) when he passed away.The petitioner later secured a job in the State's health department. Her old parents-in-law sought maintenance from her on the ground that they are aged and unable to look after themselves. Their application for maintenance was allowed by the Nyayadhikari Gram Nyayalaya, Jalkot in Latur district. .The petitioner, however, opposed the same on the ground that the parents-in-law have four married daughters, all of whom are well settled. She pointed out that her in-laws have at least 2.30 acres of land and that after her husband's death, the mother-in-law had received an amount of ₹1.88 lakh. Apart from this amount, some money was paid to the petitioner's minor son. Further, the petitioner contended that all the four daughters have a share in the property of her in-laws' and therefore their daughters are liable to pay the maintenance to their parents. .Relying on a case where the High Court had ordered the widowed daughter-in-law to maintain her old parents-in-law, the counsel representing Shobha's in-laws argued that they were solely dependent on their son. Everything (properties) in the name of their son would be transferred to the petitioner's name and therefore when she is to succeed the property, it becomes her liability to maintain the old in-laws, it was contended..However, the petitioner contested the stand and point out that the case in which the court had ordered the daughter-in-law to maintain her in-laws was on a different footing. She pointed out that in that case, the daughter-in-law therein, had secured a job on compassionate basis and she had undertook to look after the family. In the present case, the petitioner argued that she did not secure job on compassionate grounds and that she has not replaced her husband and therefore, she is not legally bound to pay the maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC..Accepting the contentions, the bench quashed the orders of the Nyayadhikari Gram Nyayalaya..Advocate JM Murkute appeared for the Petitioner. Advocate Subhash S Chillarge represented the In-laws. .[Read Judgment]