The Allahabad High Court has held that parents-in-law have no statutory right to claim maintenance from their daughter-in-law under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 125 CrPC). A single bench of Justice Madan Pal Singh dismissed the criminal revision filed by an elderly couple challenging the order dated 21 August 2025 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Agra, which had rejected their application seeking maintenance from their daughter-in-law.
The revisionists, who are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the opposite party no. 2, contended that they were old, illiterate and indigent parents wholly dependent on their deceased son, late Pravesh Kumar, during his lifetime. Their son had married the opposite party no. 2 on 26 April 2016 and died on 31 March 2021. It was argued that the daughter-in-law, employed as a Constable in the Uttar Pradesh Police, has sufficient independent income and has received all service and retiral benefits of the deceased. They urged that the moral obligation of a daughter-in-law to maintain her aged parents-in-law should be treated as a legal obligation.
Opposing the revision, counsel for the daughter-in-law submitted that the Family Court’s order was in accordance with law and did not warrant interference. The Court noted that it is an admitted position that the revisionists are the parents-in-law of the opposite party no. 2. It observed that the right to claim maintenance under Section 144 BNSS is a statutory right confined strictly to the categories of persons expressly mentioned in the provision. The legislature, in its wisdom, has not included parents-in-law within the ambit of the said provision, and it is not the scheme of the law to fasten liability of maintenance upon a daughter-in-law towards her parents-in-law.
The bench further clarified that a moral obligation, however compelling it may appear, cannot be enforced as a legal obligation in the absence of a statutory mandate. Maintenance under the provision can be claimed only by persons falling within the categories specifically enumerated therein. The Court also noted that there was nothing on record to indicate that the daughter-in-law’s employment was secured on compassionate grounds, and submissions regarding succession to the property of the deceased do not fall for consideration in summary maintenance proceedings, as such issues are beyond the scope of these proceedings.
Finding no illegality, perversity or infirmity in the order passed by the Family Court, the High Court held that the criminal revision lacks merit and accordingly dismissed it.
Case Title: Rakesh Kumar And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another
Case No.: Criminal Revision No. 6502 of 2025
Date of Judgment: 4 February 2026
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Madan Pal Singh
Lawcutor 