The Patna High Court has issued a ruling that a daughter-in-law is not eligible to seek maintenance from her father-in-law under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This ruling was issued by a Single Judge Bench, presided over by Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra. The Court also clarified that a Family Court cannot utilize Section 125 CrPC to grant interim maintenance during the course of an application for maintenance under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act.
“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.”
In the case before the Court, the respondent, a widowed daughter-in-law of the petitioner, had filed an application for maintenance under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act in the Principal Judge, Family Court, Khagaria. In this application, the respondent sought maintenance from the petitioner, her father-in-law.
During the proceedings, the respondent also moved for an application for interim maintenance. The Family Court granted the respondent’s application and ordered maintenance, invoking Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner, in this civil
revision petition, challenges the Family Court’s invocation of Section 125 and the subsequent maintenance order.
Contentions
The counsel for the petitioner, Dr. S.K. Srivastava, argued that the lower court’s grant of interim maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not legally valid, as the procedures for awarding maintenance under this section and under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act are distinct. He argued that the lower court failed to recognize that in the absence of a pending petition under Section 125 CrPC, this provision cannot be invoked to grant interim maintenance.
Counsel for the respondent, A.K. Choudhary, acknowledged that the lower court should have granted the interim maintenance under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act and not under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, he argued that the mere citation of an incorrect provision does not invalidate the order as the Court had the jurisdiction to issue the order.
Court’s Observations
The Court noted that the purpose of Section 19 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act is to permit a widowed daughter-in-law to seek maintenance from her father-in-law only if she is unable to support herself from her own assets or the estate of her husband, father, mother, son, or daughter. The Court further clarified that a father-in-law is not required to provide maintenance to his daughter-in-law unless there is ancestral property in his possession that the daughter-in-law has not received a share of.
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.
The Court clarified that Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides for an order of maintenance for a wife, children, and parents. Under this statute, a daughter-in-law cannot claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, but she may do so under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act.
Therefore, the Court held that the Family Court was not authorized to use the provision under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code to grant interim maintenance while deciding a petition under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act.
As a result, the civil revision petition was granted and the order of the Family Court was overturned.
Case Title: Kalyan Sah v. Mosmat Rashmi Priya
Case No.: Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 354 of 2018
Judgment Dated: 19th 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
