Court Rules Daughter-in-Law Not Legally Obligated to Support In-Laws

In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has clarified that a daughter-in-law is not legally obligated to provide maintenance to her in-laws under Section 144 of the Indian Justice Security Code. The court emphasized that while there may be a moral expectation, it does not translate into a legal requirement. This decision arose from a case involving an elderly couple who sought support from their daughter-in-law, who has a stable income as a police constable. The court's ruling highlights the limitations of statutory rights concerning maintenance claims.

By Narendra Chaudhary Mar 30, 2026, 10:36 IST

High Court's Ruling on Maintenance Obligations

The Allahabad High Court has determined that under Section 144 of the Indian Justice Security Code (BNSC), a daughter-in-law is not legally required to provide maintenance to her in-laws. Justice Madan Pal Singh stated that the right to claim maintenance is a statutory right limited to specific categories of individuals mentioned in this section, and in-laws do not fall within this framework.

The court noted that while it may seem like a moral obligation, it cannot be enforced as a legal duty in the absence of a statutory requirement. Dismissing a revision petition filed by elderly couple Rakesh Kumar and his wife against their daughter-in-law, the court emphasized in its ruling on February 4 that the legislature has consciously excluded in-laws from this provision.

The elderly couple had approached the High Court challenging an order passed by the Chief Justice of the Family Court in Agra in August 2025, which had also rejected their application for maintenance. They argued that they were old, uneducated, impoverished, and had been entirely dependent on their deceased son throughout their lives.

Their daughter-in-law, a constable in the Uttar Pradesh Police, has a stable income and has also received retirement benefits from their deceased son. They contended that supporting the elderly in-laws should be considered a moral obligation of their daughter-in-law and should be recognized as a legal duty. However, the court dismissed this argument, stating that there was no evidence in the records to suggest that the daughter-in-law's employment in the police was based on compassionate grounds.