Mumbai: The Bombay high court in a recent judgement held that a daughter-in-law does not fall under the definition of children and hence is not liable to contribute towards the maintenance of the elderly parents of the husband. The daughter-in-law had challenged the order of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens’ Tribunal, which directed her and her husband to pay ₹25,000 to the parents of the husband.
The couple had approached the Tribunal alleging that their son and daughter-in-law had been mistreating them and hence they should be asked to vacate the premise owned by them and also pay maintenance for their subsistence as they had no source of income.
The HC, however, held that only the son was liable to pay maintenance and the same could not be imposed on the daughter-in-law.
The division bench of justices SS Shinde and Revati Mohite Dere which was hearing the petition of the daughter-in-law, who is a Juhu resident, was informed by her advocate Yasmin Tavaria that the Tribunal had passed the order against her client and husband without considering various facts placed before it by her client.
The senior citizens had approached the Tribunal in 2018 stating that both their son and daughter-in-law were mistreating them and hence they should be asked to vacate the Juhu accommodation along with their two children and also pay them monthly maintenance. The couple had stated that the father-in-law had retired in 2016 and did not have any source of income.
The daughter-in-law on the other hand had submitted that the father-in-law and her husband had committed numerous economic frauds using her name without her knowledge and the Juhu residence was a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) property hence she and her husband and children also had a share in the property and could not be asked to vacate it. The Tribunal had however passed an order against the daughter-in-law and her husband.
Tavaria further submitted that section 2(a) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 defined the category of persons under the caption ‘children’ which would include son, daughter, grandson and granddaughter but does not include a minor. She submitted that the said section made it clear that the daughter-in-law of the senior citizens was not covered under the said definition, and therefore, not liable to pay maintenance to her in-laws.
After hearing the submissions and going through the order of the Tribunal the bench which had concluded the hearing of the petition by the daughter-in-law on April 27, 2022, in its order observed, “We are of the opinion that the view taken by the Tribunal, after adverting to the material placed on record, is legally as well as factually sustainable. Therefore, we confirm the order passed by the Tribunal except for the direction to the daughter-in-law to pay jointly with her husband, maintenance of ₹25,000 to the father and mother-in-law. Therefore, the direction to the daughter-in-law to that extent is quashed and set aside. However, as already observed, the son of the senior citizen is obliged to pay the said maintenance amount to his mother.”
The court further directed the daughter-in-law and her husband to hand over the possession of the Juhu accommodation within six weeks of the order and also directed the husband to make arrangements for accommodation for his wife and their two children.