This article is for educational and legal awareness purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice or solicitation. Please consult a qualified advocate for advice on specific legal matters.
Introduction
In Rakesh Kumar And Another v. State of U.P. and Another (2026 LiveLaw (AB) 146), decided on 28 March 2026, Justice Madan Pal Singh of the Allahabad High Court held that a daughter-in-law is not legally obligated to maintain her parents-in-law under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) or Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The Court observed that moral obligations cannot be treated as legal obligations without express statutory backing.
Facts of the Case
The petitioners were elderly parents-in-law who filed a criminal revision after the lower courts declined to grant them maintenance from their daughter-in-law. The daughter-in-law was a police constable who was also receiving benefits related to her deceased husband’s service. The parents-in-law contended that since they were dependent on their son during his lifetime, and his widow was now receiving his service benefits, she was obligated to maintain them.
The Court’s Reasoning
The Allahabad High Court dismissed the criminal revision, holding:
-
No statutory obligation — The legislature has specifically enumerated the persons upon whom the obligation to pay maintenance rests and the persons who are entitled to claim it. Parents-in-law are not included among the persons entitled to claim maintenance from a daughter-in-law or son-in-law under either Section 125 CrPC or Section 144 BNSS.
-
Moral duty is not legal duty — While there may be a moral expectation that a daughter-in-law support her elderly parents-in-law, particularly after the death of her husband, moral obligations cannot be converted into legal obligations without statutory backing. Courts cannot read words into a statute that the legislature has not included.
-
Legislative intent is clear — The fact that the legislature specifically included “father or mother” as persons entitled to maintenance — but only from their own children, not from their children’s spouses — indicates a conscious legislative choice.
Takeaway
The obligation to maintain parents under Section 125 CrPC and Section 144 BNSS rests on children, not on children’s spouses. The legislature’s enumeration of entitled persons is exhaustive; courts cannot add to it. Parents-in-law seeking maintenance from a widowed daughter-in-law must pursue proceedings under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, which defines “children” to include son, daughter, grandson, and granddaughter — but not sons-in-law or daughters-in-law.
Useful Resources
Disclaimer: The information provided on this website is for general legal awareness and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, advertisement, or solicitation. No reader should act or refrain from acting based on this information without seeking professional legal counsel. Advocate Akhil Singh and this website are not liable for any actions taken based on the content provided herein.