Karnataka High Court: While considering the instant review petition filed under Section 19(4) of Family Court Act, 1984 challenging the validity of the Magistrate’s order granting maintenance to the petitioners’ daughter-in-law and her children under Section 125 of CrPC; the Bench of V. Srishananda, J.*, upon closely reading Section 125 of CrPC, held that, a daughter-in-law cannot lay a claim against her parents-in-law. Provisions of law envisage that a wife can lay a claim for maintenance but not daughter-in-law.
Background and Contentions: The respondent and her children filed a petition under Section 125 of CrPC seeking for grant of maintenance on the ground of after the death of her husband, the parents-in-law failed to maintain her and the children.
Her petition was allowed with the Magistrate granting Rs. 20,000 per month to the wife and sum of Rs. 5,000 to the children.
Being aggrieved with the afore-stated order, parents-in-law filed the instant revision petition challenging the validity and jurisdiction of the Magistrate entertaining a petition under Section 125 of CrPC.
Counsel for the petitioner contended that the Magistrate lacked any jurisdiction to the try the respondents’ petition under S. 125, CrPC.
Per contra, the respondents submitted that upon death the husband, the petitioners failed to maintain her and her children, hence the grant of maintenance is just and proper.
Court’s Assessment: Taking note of the facts and contentions, the Court perused Section 125, CrPC which deals with “Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents”, in detail.
Upon close reading of the provision, the Court pointed out that daughter-in-law has no claim against her parents-in-law vis-à-vis maintenance. It was noted that Section 125, CrPC envisages that a wife, minor children can lay a claim for maintenance; similarly, parents can maintain a petition against their major children.
With the afore-stated analysis, the Court set aside the impugned order granted in favour of the respondents.
[Abdul Khader v. Tasleem Jamela Agadi, 2024 SCC OnLine Kar 22, decided on 21-02-2024]
*Order by Justice V. Srishananda
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For petitioners- Kavita Jadhav, Adv for Arun L. Neelopant
For respondents- Prashant Mathapati, Adv for R1
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
