The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a daughter-in-law cannot be legally compelled to provide maintenance to her parents-in-law under statutory provisions governing maintenance, holding that moral responsibility cannot be converted into a legal obligation without explicit backing from the law.
The decision came as the court dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by an elderly couple who had sought financial support from their daughter-in-law following the death of their son. Justice Madan Pal Singh, delivering the ruling, emphasised that the right to claim maintenance is strictly a statutory entitlement and can only be exercised by individuals specifically recognised under the relevant legal provisions.
The court observed that Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which replaced Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, allows a magistrate to direct a person with sufficient means to provide maintenance to their spouse, children, or parents who cannot support themselves. However, parents-in-law are not included in this category.
Justice Singh noted that the legislature had consciously chosen not to extend this provision to parents-in-law. In doing so, the court made it clear that the statutory scheme does not impose a legal duty on a daughter-in-law to maintain her husband’s parents.
Case Stemming from Family Court Decision
The case reached the high court after an order passed by the Principal Judge of the Family Court in Agra in August 2025 rejected the elderly couple’s application for maintenance under Section 144 of the BNSS.
The petitioners, identified as Rakesh Kumar and his wife, had argued that they were elderly, illiterate, indigent and entirely dependent on their son during his lifetime. Their son, a constable in the Uttar Pradesh Police, had married in 2016 and died in 2021. His wife is also employed as a constable in the Uttar Pradesh Police.
The couple contended that their daughter-in-law possessed sufficient independent income and had also received service benefits following their son’s death. On this basis, they argued that she should be legally obligated to support them.
They further asserted that even if the law did not explicitly impose such a duty, the moral obligation of a daughter-in-law to care for her ageing parents-in-law should be treated as a legal responsibility.
Court Draws Line Between Morality and Law
The High Court, however, rejected this argument, stressing that moral expectations cannot be enforced through legal mechanisms in the absence of statutory provisions.
Justice Singh stated that maintenance under Section 144 of the BNSS is limited to those categories specifically mentioned in the law. Since parents-in-law are not included in that list, they cannot claim maintenance under the provision.
The court also examined the argument relating to the daughter-in-law’s employment and noted that there was nothing on record to suggest that she had secured her job in the Uttar Pradesh Police on compassionate grounds following her husband’s death.
Additionally, the court clarified that questions concerning succession to the deceased son’s property or benefits fall outside the scope of maintenance proceedings and cannot be adjudicated in such cases.
With these observations, the court upheld the family court’s earlier decision and dismissed the elderly couple’s revision petition, reaffirming that maintenance claims must remain strictly within the boundaries defined by statute.
