The Aryavarth Express
Agency(Karnataka): In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court has set aside an order granting maintenance to a daughter-in-law and her children under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), stating that the provision does not empower courts to entertain such claims against parents-in-law.
The case arose from a petition filed by Tasleem Jamela and her children, who sought maintenance from her deceased husband’s parents, claiming that they had failed to support them after his death. The Principal Judge of the Family Court in Ballari had allowed the petition, granting Rs. 20,000 per month to Tasleem Jamela and Rs. 5,000 each to her children.
Aggrieved by the order, the parents-in-law filed a revision petition in the High Court, challenging the jurisdiction of the Magistrate in entertaining the maintenance petition under Section 125 of CrPC.
The High Court, after hearing arguments from both parties and meticulously examining the provisions of Section 125, concluded that the Magistrate lacked the jurisdiction to grant maintenance to a daughter-in-law against her parents-in-law.
The court emphasized that Section 125 of CrPC allows a wife to claim maintenance from her husband, parents to claim maintenance from their major children, and minor children to seek maintenance from their parents. However, the provision does not extend to a daughter-in-law’s claim against her parents-in-law.
In her arguments, the counsel representing the parents-in-law contended that the Magistrate had no authority to try the petition filed by the daughter-in-law and her children under Section 125 of CrPC. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondents argued that the parents-in-law had failed to take care of their welfare after the death of their son, and therefore, the maintenance order was just and proper.
After a thorough analysis of the case, the High Court noted that in the absence of any power vested in the court under Section 125 of CrPC to entertain a petition filed by a daughter-in-law against her parents-in-law, the entire order was void for want of jurisdiction.
Consequently, the High Court allowed the revision petition and set aside the impugned order. However, the court clarified that the setting aside of the order and dismissal of the maintenance petition under Section 125 of CrPC would not preclude the respondents from proceeding against the parents-in-law in accordance with the law for appropriate relief.
The judgment serves as a reminder that the scope of Section 125 of CrPC is limited to the relationships explicitly mentioned in the provision, and courts cannot extend its application to other familial relationships not covered by the statute.
While the High Court’s decision may have closed the door on the daughter-in-law’s maintenance claim under Section 125 of CrPC, it has left open the possibility for her to explore alternative legal avenues to seek support from her parents-in-law, if available under other laws.
The ruling highlights the need for a comprehensive review of maintenance laws in India to address the diverse family situations and ensure that vulnerable members of the family, including daughters-in-law, have access to appropriate legal remedies for financial support when faced with hardship.
As the debate on maintenance rights continues, this judgment is likely to have significant implications for similar cases in the future, prompting a closer examination of the scope and limitations of Section 125 of CrPC in providing relief to those in need of financial assistance within the family structure.
