According to a recent ruling by the Bombay High Court, section 125 of CrPC does not allow parents-in-law to receive financial support or maintenance from their widowed daughter-in-law.
A single judge bench of this Court comprising Hon’ble Justice Kishore C. Sant observed that the list given of the relations under section 125 of CrPC is exhaustive and there is no scope for any other interpretation
Brief Facts:
A short question that was involved in this petition is whether the father-in-law and mother-in-law can claim for maintenance from their widowed daughter-in-law under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The facts in short are that the petitioner-Shobha, widow of the deceased son of respondents no.1 and 2, was serving as a Conductor in MSRTC. After the death of her husband, the petitioner for her survival started doing a job in the health department and presently is working at J.J. Hospital, Mumbai. The case of the respondents is that now they are old aged persons having no source of income. Since their son is expired, there is no one to look after them and therefore they filed an application for maintenance in Nyayadhikari Gram Nyayalaya, Jalkot.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that all the daughters have a share in the property of respondents and therefore daughters are liable to pay the maintenance to their parents/respondents. Further, her service is not on compassionate ground in the place of her husband and therefore she is not legally bound to pay the maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. to the respondents. Thereafter she filed an application stating that the application for maintenance is not maintainable against her and prayed for rejection at this stage itself.
The submission of the Petitioner on the basis of 125 of Cr.P.C. is that the categories of the persons are mentioned in Clause (a) to (d). of the said Section. The respondents do not fall in any of the categories mentioned in the said Section.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned Advocate for the Respondents vehemently opposes the application by relying upon the judgment in the case of Smt. Saroj W/o. Govind Mukkawar Vs. Smt. Chandrakalabai Polshetwar and Anr. reported in 2009 ALL MR (Cri) 1139. He submits that the respondents were depending on their deceased son is not disputed. After son, everything in his name would now be transferred in the name of the petitioner. When the petitioner is to succeed the property it becomes her liability to maintain the respondents.
Observations of the Court:
This Court observed that by reading of Section 125, it is clear that the father-in-law and mother-in-law are not mentioned in the said Section. It is held that it is not the scheme of the 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.
Further, it was observed that in the case of Saroj W/o. Govind Mukkawar (supra), the distinguishing factor was that the widow of the deceased son was appointed by the department, where the deceased was serving, on compassionate grounds, wherein she was required to give an undertaking that she will maintain the members of the family who were dependent on the deceased. In this case, there is nothing to indicate that the job secured by the petitioner is on compassionate grounds.
Thus considering this legal position and the facts of the case it was clear to the Court that the respondents are not entitled to receive maintenance from the petitioner on the counts firstly that they are not coming under the relation mentioned in Section 125. Secondly, the appointment of the petitioner was not on compassionate grounds in place of her husband.
The decision of the Court:
The Bombay High Court, allowing the writ petition, held that this Court finds that no case is made out by the respondents to claim maintenance from the Petitioner.
Case Title: Shobha w/o Sanjay Tidke vs Kishanrao and another
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Kishore C. Sant
Case no.: Criminal Writ Petition No. 1092 of 2022
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Murkute J. M.
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Chillarge Subhash S.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source : https://www.freeimg.net/photo/1815107/seniors-carefortheelderly-protection-protect