Do you remember Captain Anshuman Singh’s Case? Sometime ago there was a heated debate on social media with regards to the compensation money received by a widow after her husband’s martyrdom and whether deceased husband’s parents should also receive their fair share.
While the recent judgment from the Punjab and Haryana High Court is not about compensation to parents after son’s martyrdom, the High Court has emphasised the necessity of a widow to take care of her old mother-in-law financially, from the job that she received on compassionate grounds after her husband’s death.
Case:
The husband of the petitioner woman (widow) was working as a constable at Rail Coach Factory in Kapurthala in Punjab. After his death in March 2002 while being in service, his widow was appointed as a junior clerk on compassionate grounds in January 2005. However, soon after acquiring this job, the petitioner left her in-laws’ home, leaving the old mother-in-law without any income.
After nearly two decades, the mother-in-law moved an application under Section 125 CrPC (Section 144 BNSS) seeking maintenance from her daughter-in-law.
In March 2024, the competent court observed that the daughter-in-law was earning ₹80,000 per month and thus ordered her to pay ₹10,000 per month to her mother-in-law as maintenance.
Challenging this order, the daughter-in-law approached High Court for relief.
Submission by Petitioner Daughter-in-Law
The counsel for the petitioner informed the High Court that her in-laws had four children and that they were not dependent just on her husband. The daughter-in-law argued:
After getting the compassionate appointment, the petitioner left her in-laws home, along with her son. She is raising the child as a single mother. The petitioner’s husband died in 2002 and the petitioner was appointed as a junior clerk in 2005. However, the respondent filed an application seeking maintenance in 2022, after a delay of about 20 years.
Moreover, a mother-in-law cannot be considered a dependent in terms of Section 125 of CrPC (now Section 144 of the BNSS), upon a daughter-in-law.
Arguments by Respondent Mother-in-Law
On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent mother-in-law argued that her daughter-in-law was appointed as Junior Clerk only because of her husband, that is son of the respondent. Since her son died while in service, the underlying objective of compassionate appointment is to assist the family in navigating the financial crisis caused by a sudden death. The counsel stressed upon the fact that once the petitioner accepted this compassionate appointment, it was her duty to step into her husband’s shoes and maintain his elderly mother.
Punjab & Haryana High Court
At the outset, the single bench of Justice Harpreet Singh Brar dismissed the plea of daughter-in-law thereby upholding the interim maintenance of ₹10,000 per month to the mother-in-law.
Elaborating on the contents and intent of Section 125 CrPC (Section 144 BNSS), Justice Brar said:
It is clear that Section 125 of Cr.P.C. (now Section 144 of BNSS) does not place any liability on the daughter-in-law to maintain her parents-in-law or vice versa. However, the petitioner was employed by the RCF on compassionate grounds. The idea behind granting a compassionate appointment is to assist the family in dealing with the financial crisis that follows the death of a bread-earner.
The husband of the respondent passed away a little while before filing the present petition and since his demise, the respondent, a sexagenarian, has no one to maintain her. The respondent has three children — her son (Praveen Kumar Saini) has passed away, her daughter is already married and her other son is a rickshaw puller, who has to take care of his severally sick child. As such, neither of her surviving children is able to take care of her basic necessities.
Justice Brar added,
The object and purpose behind granting maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. (now Section 144 of BNSS) is to avoid destitution or vagrancy. At the same time, a just and careful balance must be struck to ensure that this provision does not degenerate into a weapon of harassment.
The Courts are required to conduct the maintenance proceedings while being alive to the legislative intent behind the provision under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. (now Section 144 of BNSS) in its true spirit, which is to provide speedy assistance and social justice to women, children and infirm parents.
Commenting on the single mother status of the petitioner, the bench said,
Since the petitioner was given her current job on compassionate grounds, she is liable to take care of the respondent, as she has stepped into the shoes of her deceased husband. While this Court is conscious of the plight of a single mother, the petitioner cannot be allowed to merely take up the benefits of a compassionate appointment and avoid the responsibilities that come with it.
The record reflects that the petitioner is earning a handsome amount of ₹80,000 per month, as such, the petitioner can comfortably pay ₹10,000 per month to the respondent as maintenance.
While dismissing the daughter-in-law’s plea, the High Court stated:
The overarching aim of justice is to serve what is deserved and accountability and fairness are identifying features of the same. However, the said purpose would be defeated, if justice is viewed in its absolute mechanical form, devoid of context and nuance.
While justice in itself is a dynamic concept, directly influenced by the morality of an ever-evolving society, it can be said with certainty that absolute impartiality and lack of compassion often claims fairness as a casualty.
VOICE FOR MEN INDIA TAKE:
- Section 125 CrPC is not gender neutral
- The sole responsibility to maintain a wife, children and infirm parents lies on the husband, father or son respectively
- In this particular case, one can argue as to how was the mother-in-law surviving financially for almost twenty years before she approached court for maintenance
- However, in our view, though there has been a delay, and whether the daughter-in-law and mother-in-law had no contact for several years, a sum of ₹10,000 – which is approximately 1/10th of the petitioner’s income – seems fair and just
- We must also inform our readers, that if this job appointment was not on compassionate grounds, and even if the daughter-in-law was earning in lakhs, she would have no financial liability to maintain her in-laws after her husband’s death. On the other hand, a widow can claim maintenance from her deceased husband’s father as well. Read Here.
What are your thoughts in this case, do share below!
YOU MAY WATCH:
Cricketer Yuvraj Singh’s Brother Zoraver Singh’s Domestic Violence Case | Akanksha Sharma Big Boss
LEAVE YOUR COMMENTS BELOW:
Daughter-in-Law Ordered To Pay Monthly Maintenance To Mother-in-Law After Obtaining Compassionate Job Appointment: Punjab Haryana HC
▪️2022: Husband dies
▪️2005: Wife gets compassionate employment
▪️2022: MIL files maintenance u/s 125 CrPCCOMMENTS?https://t.co/Ts5EMjIcrM
— Voice For Men India (@voiceformenind) January 7, 2025
Join our Facebook Group or follow us on social media by clicking on the icons below
If you find value in our work, you may choose to donate to Voice For Men Foundation via Milaap OR via UPI: voiceformenindia@hdfcbank (80G tax exemption applicable)
Follow Us
