The Allahabad High Court has clarified that a daughter-in-law cannot be legally required to provide maintenance to her parents-in-law under the existing statutory framework, drawing a clear distinction between moral expectations and enforceable legal duties.
In its ruling, Justice Madan Pal Singh stated that the right to claim maintenance is strictly governed by statute and applies only to those categories explicitly mentioned in the law. Under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), now replaced by Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), parents-in-law are not included among those entitled to claim maintenance. As a result, the court held that no legal obligation can be imposed on a daughter-in-law in this regard.
The judgment emphasised that while moral responsibility may exist in certain family relationships, it cannot be converted into a legal duty unless the legislature has clearly provided for it. The court noted that the absence of parents-in-law from the statutory provision reflects a deliberate legislative choice, and courts cannot expand the scope of the law beyond what has been explicitly defined.
The case arose from a revision petition filed by an elderly couple who challenged a family court order from August 2025 in Agra, which had rejected their plea for maintenance. The couple argued that they were financially dependent, elderly, and had relied on their son during his lifetime. Following his death, they sought financial support from their daughter-in-law, who is employed as a constable in the Uttar Pradesh Police and was claimed to have sufficient income.
They further contended that her moral obligation to support them should be recognised as a legal responsibility, especially given their vulnerable condition. However, the High Court did not accept this argument, reiterating that moral considerations alone cannot create enforceable rights in the absence of statutory backing.
The court also observed that there was no evidence to show that the daughter-in-law had secured her government job on compassionate grounds after her husband’s death, which might have had relevance in certain contexts. Additionally, it clarified that issues related to the inheritance or succession of the deceased son’s property were outside the scope of maintenance proceedings and would need to be addressed separately under appropriate legal provisions.
By dismissing the petition, the High Court reinforced the principle that maintenance rights are limited to clearly defined relationships under the law, and any expansion of such obligations must come through legislative action rather than judicial interpretation.
