The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that a woman employed on compassionate grounds after her husband’s death is obligated to support her mother-in-law. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar upheld a family court’s decision directing the woman to pay ₹10,000 per month as interim maintenance to her mother-in-law.
Court’s Observation on Maintenance Laws
The Court noted that Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) does not explicitly require a daughter-in-law to maintain her in-laws. However, exceptions can be made to serve the cause of justice. Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Manmohan Gopal Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh and a similar judgment by the Allahabad High Court in Hari Lal Vs. Balwantia, the High Court emphasized that justice may demand such exceptions.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, a junior clerk at the Rail Coach Factory, was appointed in 2005 after her husband, a constable, passed away in 2002. She moved out of her matrimonial home with her son after her husband’s death.
In 2022, her mother-in-law approached a family court in Sonepat, seeking financial support. The court, in March 2024, ordered the woman to pay ₹10,000 per month as interim maintenance.
Woman’s Arguments and Court’s Findings
The petitioner challenged the family court’s order, arguing that her mother-in-law had other children who could support her and that the claim was filed after an unreasonable delay of 20 years.
However, the High Court found that the petitioner had signed an affidavit at the time of her appointment, committing to support her deceased husband’s dependents. The Court also noted that the mother-in-law’s other son, a rickshaw puller, was burdened with the care of a severely ill child, while her daughter was married and unable to assist.
Court’s Reasoning and Judgment
The Court highlighted that the purpose of maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC is to prevent destitution and ensure social justice. It stressed the need for a balanced approach to avoid misuse of the provision while protecting the vulnerable.
“Since the petitioner was given her current job on compassionate grounds, she is responsible for the respondent, as she has stepped into the shoes of her deceased husband,” the Court stated.
Although the Court acknowledged the petitioner’s challenges as a single mother, it emphasized that she could not avoid her responsibilities while benefiting from a compassionate appointment. With a monthly salary of ₹80,000, the Court deemed the petitioner capable of paying ₹10,000 as maintenance.
Legal Representation
Advocate Ashutosh Kaushik represented the petitioner, while Advocates Ashwani Gaur and Shivangi Sharma appeared for the respondent.
This judgment underscores the Court’s commitment to upholding social justice while ensuring that compassionate appointments fulfill their intended purpose of supporting dependent family members.
