Allahabad High Court Rules Daughter-in-Law Not Liable to Maintain In-Laws

The Allahabad High Court has clarified in a significant ruling that a daughter-in-law is not legally obligated to provide maintenance to her parents-in-law. The court observed that Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) does not include parents-in-law within the category of relatives entitled to claim maintenance. While the bench noted that supporting in-laws may be considered a moral responsibility, it cannot be enforced as a legal obligation.

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), a daughter-in-law is not legally required to provide maintenance to her parents-in-law. Justice Madan Pal Singh stated that the right to claim maintenance is a statutory right and is limited only to the categories of persons specifically mentioned in the provision. Since parents-in-law are not included in this category, they cannot claim maintenance under this section.

The court observed that although supporting one’s in-laws may be considered a moral responsibility, it cannot be enforced as a legal obligation in the absence of a clear statutory provision. While dismissing a revision petition filed by an elderly couple, Rakesh Kumar and his wife, against their daughter-in-law, the court said in its February 4 order that the legislature had deliberately not included parents-in-law within the scope of this provision.

The elderly couple had approached the High Court challenging an order passed by the Principal Judge of the Family Court in Agra in August 2025, which had also rejected their plea for maintenance. They argued that they were old, illiterate, and financially dependent throughout their lives on their son, who had passed away.

They further claimed that their daughter-in-law, who is serving as a constable in the Uttar Pradesh Police, has a stable income and had also received the retirement benefits of their deceased son. According to them, it was her moral duty to support her elderly in-laws and this should be treated as a legal responsibility as well.

However, the court rejected this argument, noting that there was no evidence on record to suggest that the daughter-in-law had obtained her police job on compassionate grounds after her husband’s death.