Prayagraj News: 'Daughter-in-law is not obligated to pay alimony to her in-laws', important comment of Allahabad High Court:Allahabad High Court has ruled that under Section 144 of the Indian Penal Code, the daughter-in-law is not legally bound to pay maintenance to her in-laws.

News Topical, Digital Desk : In a significant decision, the Allahabad High Court has held that a daughter-in-law is not legally obligated to pay maintenance to her in-laws under Section 144 of the Indian Penal Code. Justice Madan Pal Singh stated that the right to claim maintenance is a statutory right limited to the classes of persons specified in this section, and that in-laws are not covered by this provision.

It is a moral obligation, not a legal one – the court's clear observation

The court stated that while this may appear to be a moral obligation, it cannot be enforced as a legal obligation in the absence of a legal imperative. The court also stated that the legislature, in its discretion, had not included in-laws within the scope of the said provision. This observation was made in its February 4 decision dismissing a review petition filed by an elderly couple, Rakesh Kumar and his wife, against their daughter-in-law.

The family court in Agra had also rejected the application.

The elderly couple had approached the High Court challenging an order passed by the Chief Justice of the Agra Family Court in August 2025. The lower court had already dismissed their application seeking maintenance. Challenging this order, the elderly couple approached the High Court, where they also received no relief.

Old, illiterate and penniless - Bahu, a police constable

The elderly couple argued that they were old, illiterate, impoverished, and completely dependent on their deceased son for their entire life. Their daughter-in-law, a constable in the Uttar Pradesh Police, has a sufficient income and has also received their deceased son's retirement benefits. They argued that it was their daughter-in-law's moral obligation to support her elderly parents-in-law, and this should be considered a legal obligation. However, the court rejected this argument on the grounds that there was nothing on record to indicate that the daughter-in-law's police employment was based on compassionate grounds.