Daughter-In-Law Can’t Claim Maintenance From Father-In-Law U/S 125 CrPC: Patna High Court

The Single Judge Bench of Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra further held that a Family Court cannot invoke Section 125 CrPC to grant interim maintenance while deciding an application for maintenance under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act (the HAMA). The Court said:

“Section 125 of Cr.P.C. deals with an order for maintenance of wife, children and parents. The daughter-in-law cannot claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. but she can claim the same under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. The provision of Section 125 Cr.P.C. in petition under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 cannot be applied.”

Brief Facts

The respondent is the widowed daughter-in-law of the petitioner who had filed a maintenance application under Section 19 of the HAMA in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Khagaria. Therein, she claimed maintenance from the petitioner (her father-in-law).

Subsequently, in the same proceedings, she moved an application for grant of interim maintenance. The Family Court allowed the application and granted her maintenance, however by invoking Section 125, Cr.P.C. Thus, the petitioner has impugned such invocation and the order in this civil revision petition.

Contentions

Dr. S.K. Srivastava, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Court below has granted the interim maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. which is not valid in law as procedure for awarding maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C and Section 19 of the HAMA are different. The Court below, he argued, failed to appreciate that when there was no petition pending under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., the provision could not have been invoked to grant interim maintenance.

A.K. Choudhary, counsel for the respondent fairly conceded that the Court below should have passed the interim maintenance under Section 19 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act and not under Section 125 Cr.P.C. But he contended that merely mentioning an inappropriate provision is not material when the Court has the jurisdiction to pass the order.

Court’s Observations

The Court observed that the object of Section 19 of the Act is to enable a widowed daughter-in-law to claim maintenance from her father-in-law only where she is unable to maintain herself out of her own property or from the estate of her husband, father, mother, son or daughter.

It is also provided that the father-in-law shall be under no obligation to maintain his daughter-in-law except in cases where there is some ancestral property in his possession from which the daughter-in-law has not obtained any share.

“The obligation of father-in-law shall not be enforced if he has no means to maintain his daughter-in-law from any coparcenary property in his possession out of which the daughter-in-law has not obtained any share and any such obligation cease on the re-marriage of the daughter-in-law. It is settled law that a Court empowered to grant a substantive relief is competent to award it on interim basis as well, even though there is no express provision in the statute to grant it”, the Court added.

However, the Court clarified that Section 125 of Cr.P.C. provides for an order of maintenance of wife, children and parents. As per the said statutory scheme, the daughter-in-law cannot claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., but she can claim the same under Section 19 of the HAMA.

Therefore, the Court was of the opinion that the family Court was not justified in applying the provision under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for the grant of interim maintenance while deciding a petition under Section 19 of the HAMA.

Resultantly, the civil revision was allowed quashing the order of the Family Court.

Case Title: Kalyan Sah v. Mosmat Rashmi Priya

Case No.: Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 354 of 2018

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 2

Judgment Dated: 19^th January 2023

Coram: S.D. Mishra, J.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Dr. Satyendra Kumar Srivastava, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Anil Kumar Choudhary, Advocate

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment