HYDERABAD:The Hyderabad High Court has ruled that there is no obligation on the part of the father-in-law to provide maintenance to the daughter-in-law. Equally, there is no obligation on the part of the paternal grandfather to provide maintenance to the grand children.
Justice T Sunil Chowdary made this order on a petition filed under Section 482 of CrPC seeking to quash the proceedings in a maintenance claim application pending before the First Class Judicial Magistrate, Nizamabad.
As for the case details, a Muslim woman was married to the son of the petitioner Masthan. The marriage was performed as per Muslim rights and customs in 2004. They were blessed with a child. Unfortunately, her husband died in 2006. She along with her child approached the First Class Judicial Magistrate seeking maintenance from her father-in-law under Section 125 of CrPC by claiming that they do not have any source of income to maintain themselves. The father-in-law (Masthan) moved the High Court seeking to quash the proceedings pending before the lower court.
As per Section 125 (1) of CrPC, an order for maintenance of wives, children and parents arises if any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain - a) his wife who is unable to maintain herself, or b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself, a Magistrate of the First Class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct.
Further the Magistrate may, during the pendency of the proceeding regarding monthly allowance for the maintenance under this sub-section, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the interim maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, and the expenses of such proceeding which the Magistrate considers reasonable, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may direct from time to time.
Relying upon a 1996 judgment in Ved Prakash vs Leena Kahar case, the petitioner’s counsel contended that there is no obligation on the part of the father-in-law to provide maintenance to the daughter-in-law, and hence the case filed before the lower court is not maintainable under law.
The public prosecutor submitted that the claim of the petitioners (daughter-in-law and her child) in seeking maintenance before the lower court falls outside the purview of Section 125 of CrPC. The father-in-law who have received notice remained ex parte.
After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material on record, Justice Sunil Chowdary found that Section 125 of CrPC clearly indicates that legitimate and illegitimate children are entitled to claim maintenance from their father; the wife as well as the divorced wife is entitled to claim maintenance from her husband and age-old parents, who are unable to maintain themselves can also file a petition under Section 125 of CrPC claiming maintenance.
There is social and moral obligation on the part of the husband, father and son to provide maintenance to the wife, legitimate and illegitimate children and age-old parents respectively. There is no obligation on the part of the father-in-law to provide maintenance to the daughter-in-law. Equally, there is no obligation on the part of the paternal grandfather to provide maintenance to the grandchildren. The judge noticed that the relief sought by the respondents (daughter-in-law and grand child) in the maintenance claim application falls outside the purview of Section 125.
“I am of the considered view that the respondents (daughter-in-law and grand child) herein are not entitled to claim maintenance from the petitioner herein by invoking the provisions of Section 125 of CrPC, therefore, continuation of legal proceedings against the petitioner herein certainly would amount to abuse of process of Court.
The averments made in maintenance claim bereft all the basic ingredients of Section 125 of CrPC,’’ the judge observed.
Taking into consideration the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in RP Kapoor vs. State of Punjab case, Justice Chowdary allowed the petition by quashing the proceedings pending before the First Class Judicial Magistrate.