On January 19, a single-judge bench of the Patna High Court led by Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra clarified that under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a daughter-in-law is not entitled to maintenance from her father-in-law. The court also ruled that a Family Court cannot use Section 125 of the Code of Civil Procedure to grant interim maintenance while hearing an application for maintenance under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act (the HAMA). According to the Court:

“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 the petition under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 cannot be applied.”

Dr S.K. Srivastava, counsel for the petitioner, contended that the Court below granted interim maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., which is not legal because the procedures for awarding maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 19 of the HAMA are different. He contended that the Court below failed to recognise that because there was no petition pending under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., the provision could not be invoked to grant interim maintenance. Counsel for the respondent, A.K. Choudhary, fairly conceded that the Court below should have granted interim maintenance under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act rather than Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. However, he contended that simply mentioning an inappropriate provision is insignificant when the Court has jurisdiction to issue the order.

It is also stated that the father-in-law is not required to support his daughter-in-law unless 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 an interim basis as well, even though there is no express provision in the statute to grant it”, the Court added.

The Court did, however, clarify that Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. provides for an order of maintenance for the wife, children, and parents. According to the statutory scheme, the daughter-in-law cannot seek maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., but she can seek it under Section 19 of the HAMA.

As a result, the Court concluded that the Family Court was not justified in granting interim maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. while deciding a petition under Section 19 of the HAMA.

Case Title: Kalyan Sah v. Mosmat Rashmi Priya
Case No.: Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 354 of 2018

Link: Read the complete judgment on this link