MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |    

Daughter-in-Law’s Maintenance Claim Against Parents-in-Law Not Maintainable Under Section 125 Cr.P.C.: Karnataka HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench, has held that a daughter-in-law cannot claim maintenance from her parents-in-law under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The decision, delivered by Justice V. Srishananda on February 21, 2024, arises from a revision petition challenging the jurisdiction and validity of a maintenance order by the Family Court.

The Court scrutinized the scope of Section 125 Cr.P.C., emphasizing that it does not extend to enabling a daughter-in-law to seek maintenance from her parents-in-law. This legal interpretation became central to the decision.

Respondents Tasleem Jamela Agadi and her children, after the death of her husband Khaja Mainudden Agadi, sought maintenance from the petitioners, her parents-in-law. The Family Court ordered the petitioners to pay Rs. 20,000 monthly to Tasleem and Rs. 5,000 each to the minors.

The petitioners contested the Family Court’s decision, questioning the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to entertain such a petition. Conversely, the respondents argued for the maintenance, citing the petitioners’ failure to look after their welfare.

The High Court meticulously analyzed Section 125 of Cr.P.C., highlighting that the provision caters to maintenance claims by wives, children, and parents, but not by a daughter-in-law against her parents-in-law. Justice Srishananda noted, “In the absence of any power vested in the Court under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., to entertain a petition filed by the daughter-in-law against her parents-in-law, the entire order is devoid of jurisdiction.”

The Court allowed the revision petition, setting aside the order of the Family Court and dismissing the maintenance petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the parents-in-law. However, the Court clarified that this does not bar the respondents from seeking appropriate legal relief against the petitioners.

Date of Decision: 21st February 2024

Abdul Khader and Another v. Tasleem Jamela Agadi and Others

Similar News