A daughter-in-law is not classified as a 'child' under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P1 order passed by the 1st respondent, directing the petitioner, who is the daughter- in-law, to pay the amount ordered therein. The petitioner is the daughter-in-law of the 3^rd respondent. The additional 4^th respondent, who is the husband of the petitioner, is working abroad. A complaint was filed by the 3rd respondent, a senior citizen, before the 1^st respondent seeking maintenance from his son, who is the additional 4^th respondent. However, after hearing the parties, the tribunal passed Ext.P1 order directing the petitioner herein as well as the additional 4^th respondent to pay the maintenance amount. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court with the above writ petition.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent, the learned counsel for the 4^th respondent as well as the learned Government Pleader.

3. No counter affidavit is filed in this case. When this case came up for consideration on 13.02.2026, the learned counsel for the fourth respondent, on instructions submitted that the fourth respondent is ready and willing to pay the arrears in six monthly installments and also to regularly pay the maintenance amount of ₹4,000/- from March 2026 onwards. A statement also has been filed by the additional 4^th respondent on 19.02.2026. In the statement, it has been specifically stated that the petitioner/daughter-in-law does not come under the definition of ‘children’ or of ‘relative’ as defined under Section 2 (a) or 2(g) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, since the petitioner is the daughter-in-law, no such order ought to have been passed by the 1st respondent directing her to pay maintenance to the 3rd respondent, who is her mother-in-law. I find force in the said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The daughter-in-law does not come within the definition of the term ‘children’ or ‘relative’ under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act , 2007 so as to direct her to pay maintenance to her mother-in-law. The tribunal ought not have directed the petitioner to pay the maintenance amount since the relief sought in the petition was against the son of the senior citizen. Hence, I find that Ext.P1 order directing the petitioner to pay the maintenance amount is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the additional 4^th respondent has submitted that the 3^rd respondent/mother may be directed to take steps to remove the name of her son/the additional 4^th respondent, from the ration card, as its inclusion is causing difficulties to him. On the basis of the statement now filed on behalf of the additional 4^th respondent, I find that the writ petition itself can be disposed of as follows:–

(i) Ext.P1 order directing the petitioner to pay the maintenance amount is hereby set aside.

(ii) The additional 4th respondent is directed to pay the outstanding arrears amounting to ₹2,80,000/- in six equal monthly installments, commencing from 10.03.2026. The additional 4th respondent shall also continue to pay the monthly maintenance of ₹4,000/-

from 10.03.2026 onwards.

(iii) The additional fourth respondent is permitted to take steps to remove his name from the ration card held by the third respondent, in accordance with law and the third respondent shall co-operate with the fourth respondent, to get his name deleted from the ration card.

Sd/-