Case Note & Summary
The revision arose from an order of the Family Court dismissing a maintenance application filed by a 70-year-old mother-in-law against her two daughters-in-law under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The applicant's husband had died in 2000 while serving in the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation. Her son Rameshwar, who was the husband of respondent no. 1, obtained compassionate appointment but died in 2009, after which respondent no. 1 secured employment on compassionate grounds. The applicant's elder son, husband of respondent no. 2, also died in 2009. The applicant alleged that the respondents were earning rent from properties that belonged to her husband and had sufficient means but failed to maintain her. She claimed maintenance of Rs. 10,000 per month jointly and severally. The respondents opposed, with respondent no. 1 arguing that a mother-in-law is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125, though she expressed willingness to maintain the applicant. Respondent no. 2 also denied liability but agreed to pay maintenance as ordered by the court. The Family Court dismissed the application on the ground that a mother-in-law is not a person entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 and that the applicant had three daughters, including a lecturer, who were primarily liable to maintain her. The applicant challenged this order in revision before the High Court under Section 397 CrPC. The High Court examined the scope of Section 125 and held that the provision gives an exhaustive list of persons who can claim maintenance—wife, legitimate or illegitimate children, and father or mother. The court noted that the term 'mother' does not include a stepmother, as laid down by the Supreme Court in Kirtikant D. Vadodaria vs State of Gujarat, and by analogy, a mother-in-law is even more distant and cannot be brought within the provision. The court distinguished the earlier Bombay High Court decision in Saroj Govind Mukkawar vs Chandrakalabai Polshetwar, where maintenance was granted to a mother-in-law on peculiar facts where the daughter-in-law had given an undertaking to the employer. The court held that the said decision could not be followed as a binding precedent. It also observed that the applicant had three daughters, one of whom was economically sound, and she had bypassed them to claim from daughters-in-law, which militated against her case. The court, however, clarified that the applicant had independent civil remedies for partition or maintenance. Ultimately, the High Court upheld the Family Court's order and dismissed the revision, ruling that a mother-in-law is not entitled to invoke Section 125 CrPC for maintenance from a daughter-in-law.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC - Exhaustive Nature of Section 125 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 125 - The provision enumerates an exhaustive list of relations entitled to claim maintenance: wife, children, father and mother; the list does not include mother-in-law; the court cannot read the provision down to include a mother-in-law (Paras 7-8) B) Criminal Procedure - Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC - Meaning of 'Mother' - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 125 - The expression 'mother' in the provision does not include a stepmother, as held by the Supreme Court in Kirtikant D. Vadodaria vs State of Gujarat; by parity of reasoning, mother-in-law stands on an even more distant footing and cannot claim maintenance under Section 125 (Para 10) C) Precedent and Precedent application - Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC - Saroj Govind Mukkawar case not followed - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 125 - The decision in Saroj Govind Mukkawar vs Chandrakalabai Polshetwar which awarded maintenance to a mother-in-law in peculiar circumstances was not followed as a precedent because it was rendered on unique facts where the daughter-in-law had given an undertaking to the employer; the court held that the ratio cannot be applied universally (Paras 9, 5) D) Family Law - Maintenance - Alternate Civil Remedy - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 125 - The applicant mother-in-law may have independent civil rights to claim partition or maintenance from joint family properties; Section 125 being a summary criminal remedy cannot be invoked to enforce rights that fall outside its limited scope (Para 11) E) Criminal Procedure - Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC - Duty of Daughters - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 125 - The applicant had three daughters, one of them being a lecturer, who were primarily liable to maintain their mother under the provision; the mother-in-law bypassed them and claimed from daughters-in-law; this further disentitled her to claim maintenance from the respondents (Paras 12-13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a mother-in-law can claim maintenance from her daughter-in-law under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973?
Final Decision
Revision dismissed. The application under Section 125 CrPC was not maintainable as mother-in-law is not entitled to claim maintenance from daughter-in-law. The Family Court order was upheld.
Law Points
- Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
- 1973 provides an exhaustive list of persons entitled to claim maintenance
- which includes wife
- children (legitimate or illegitimate
- minor or major unable to maintain)
- and father or mother
- the term 'mother' does not include stepmother or mother-in-law
- the court cannot expand the scope of Section 125 by interpretation to include relatives not expressly listed
- a mother-in-law is not entitled to claim maintenance from daughter-in-law under Section 125 even if the daughter-in-law obtained employment on compassionate grounds after the death of the mother-in-law's son
- the remedy of maintenance under Section 125 is a summary criminal remedy limited to specified relations and does not preclude the mother-in-law from seeking civil remedies
