Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Allahabad High Court: While considering a criminal revision challenging the order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court whereby the application filed by the parents-in-law seeking maintenance from daughter-in-law was rejected, a Single Judge Bench of Madan Pal Singh, J., held that the concept of moral obligation seems compelling, however, cannot be enforced as a legal obligation in the absence of a statutory mandate. The Court dismissed the revision at hand and stated that it was not the scheme of the legislature to fasten liability of maintenance upon a daughter-in-law towards her parents-in-law under the said provision.
The parents-in-law submitted that they were old, illiterate, and indigent parents of their deceased son. They argued that their daughter-in-law was employed as a Constable in the Uttar Pradesh Police, had sufficient independent income, and had also received all service and retiral benefits of their deceased son, thus should treat her moral obligation to maintain the aged parents-in-law as legal obligation.
The Court stated that the right to claim maintenance under the Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is a statutory right and is confined only to the categories of persons expressly mentioned therein. The Court emphasised that “The legislature, in its wisdom, has not included parents-in-law within the ambit of the said provision.” The Court stated that it was not the scheme of the legislature to fasten liability of maintenance upon a daughter-in-law towards her parents-in-law under the said provision.
The Court held that in the present case, there was nothing on record to indicate that the employment secured by the daughter-in-law was on compassionate grounds. Further, the Court opined that the concept of moral obligation seems compelling, however, cannot be enforced as a legal obligation in the absence of a statutory mandate. The Court stated that maintenance under the said provision could be claimed only by persons falling within the categories specifically enumerated therein. Thus, the Court dismissed the revision at hand.
[Rakesh Kumar v. State of U.P., 2026 SCC OnLine All 1482, decided on 4-2-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Revisionist: Monika Pal, Advocate
For the Opposite Party: G.A., Rajesh Kumar Yadav
