Patna High Court
Patna High Court by quashing the order of the family court says that under section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure daughter-in-law cannot claim or entitled to claim maintenance from her father-in-law. Family court cannot invoke Section 125of CrPC to grant interim maintenance while deciding an application for maintenance under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act (The HAMA Act). The case was Kalyan Sah V/S Mosmat Rashmi Priya[Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 354 of 2018]. The case was presided by Mr. Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra.
Facts of the case
- The petition was filed by the petitioner against his daughter-in-law. She filed the a maintenance application under section 19 of the HAMA in the Court of Principle Judge, Family Court, Khagaria. She claimed maintenance from her father-in-law who was the petitioner of the case.
- She also made an application seeking for interim maintenance. The learned Family Court had granted the interim maintenance to the her by invoking Section 125, CrPC. Thus the petitioner had filed this petition in the Patna High Court.
- The counsel of the petitioner argued that the interim maintenance granted by the family court under Section 125, CrPC is not valid as procedure for awarding the maintenance under Section 125, CrPC and Section19, the HAMA are different. The counsel for respondent said that the court should have passed the order in under Section 19 of The HAMA. He said the merely mentioning the inappropriate provision is not material when the court has passed the jurisdiction.
Judgment
The Court observed that Section 19, the HAMA is to enable a widowed daughter-in-law to claim maintenance from her father-in-law only when she is unable to maintain herself out of her own property or her husband, father, mother, son or daughter property. Section 125, CrPC provides for an order of maintenance of wife, children or parents. The court said that father-in-law is under no obligation to maintain his daughter-in-law except where there is some ancestral property in his possession from which the daughter-in-law has not obtained any share. The court said that the daughter-in-law cannot claim the maintenance under Section125, CrPC. The order of the Family Court was quashed by the High Court.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY NAMRATA SINGH
