The Karnataka High Court while allowing the petition said that a daughter-in-law cannot lay a claim for maintenance against her parents-in-law under Section 125 of CrPC.
A Single Bench of Justice V Srishananda passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Abdul Khader and others.
The Revision Petition is filed by the respondents in Criminal Miscellaneous on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ballari, challenging the order dated 30.11.2021.
The facts of the case are that the respondents herein namely Tasleem Jamela and and her children claiming to be the wife and children of Late Khaja Mainudden Agadi, filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking for grant of maintenance on the ground of after the death of Khaja Mainudden Agadi, the respondents being the parents-in-law failed to maintain the petitioners.
Petition on contest, came to be allowed by granting sum of Rs 20,000/- per month to the first petitioner and sum of Rs 5,000/- to the petitioner Nos 2 to 5.
Being aggrieved by the same, respondents who are the parents-in-law of the first petitioner in Criminal Miscellaneous and first respondent in the revision petition filed the revision petition challenging the very validity and jurisdiction of the Magistrate in entertaining a petition under Section 125 of CrPC.
Kavita Jadhav, counsel representing the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition vehemently contended that the Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to try the petition filed by the respondents herein under Section 125 of CrPC, and sought for allowing the revision petition.
Per contra, Prashant Mathapati, counsel for respondent No 1 contended that after the death of Khaja Mainudden Agadi husband of the first respondent and father of the respondent Nos 2 to 5, revision petitioner being the parents-in-law failed to take care of the welfare of the respondents and therefore, awarding of maintenance is just and proper and sought for dismissal of the revision petition.
“On such perusal of the material on record, it is just and necessary for the Court to cull out Section 125 of Cr.P.C to appreciate the argument put forth on behalf of the revision petitioner.
On close reading of the provision under Section 125 of Cr.P.C, a daughter-in-law cannot lay a claim against her parents-in-law. Provisions of law envisage that a wife can lay a claim for maintenance.
Likewise, parents can maintain a petition against their major children. So also minor children can lay a claim.
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 Court is of the considered opinion that the entire order is honest for want of jurisdiction”, the Court observed while allowing the petition.
“Impugned order is set aside. Setting aside the order and dismissal of the petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C, shall not preclude the respondents from proceeding against the revision petitioners in accordance with law for appropriate relief”, the order reads.