A single judge bench of the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad comprising Justice Kishor C Sant has recently held that parents-in-law will not be able to claim maintenance from their widowed daughter-in-law under Section 125 of the CrPc.
“… 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 court noted.
The petitioner, Shobha, was working at JJ Hospital, Mumbai, for her survival after the death of her husband, who was a conductor in MSRTC. The in-laws were old and had no source of income. They filed an application for maintenance in Nyayadhikari Gram Nyayalaya, Jalkot, which was contested by Shobha.
She stated that the in-laws had four daughters who were married and were staying with their husbands, and they had their own house and land. The mother-in-law of the deceased received an amount of Rs 1,88,000 from MSRTC, and the remaining amount was given to the minor son of the deceased.
Shobha argued that her service is not on compassionate grounds and, therefore, she is not legally bound to pay maintenance under Section 125 of CrPc The in-laws argued that the application under Section 125 is maintainable as they come under the category mentioned in Section 125 sub-section.
The Nyayadhikari Gram Nyayalaya held that as the respondents are senior citizens without any source of livelihood, Shobha is liable to maintain them. Shobha then approached the high court against this order.
Before the high court, Shobha argued that the respondents do not fall into any of the categories mentioned in the said Section 125.
The counsel appearing for Shobha’s in-laws argued that they were dependent on their son and all properties of the son would be transferred to Shobha. Further, they relied on a case decided by the high court where maintenance was granted to in-laws.
The high court agreed with the contentions of the widowed daughter-in-law and allowed the plea on the following grounds:
1. Firstly, they are not under the relation mentioned in Section 125
2. Secondly, the appointment of the petitioner was not on compassionate grounds in place of her husband
3. Thirdly, on the count that the mother of the deceased son had also received an amount of Rs 1,88,000 after the death of the deceased son.
Read all the Latest India News here
Comments
0 comment