Back
: Daughter-in-law not liable under Act if children alive
In a significant ruling that clarifies the scope of the , the has held that a daughter-in-law cannot be compelled to pay when the senior citizen's own children are alive and capable of providing support. Justice Harisankar V. Menon set aside an order of the that had directed Hajara, a widow, to pay ₹10,000 per month to her mother-in-law, Fathima.
A Widow's Battle Against a Selective Order
The case arose after the death of Hajara's husband, Abdulla, who was Fathima's son. Following his death, Fathima executed a in , transferring certain properties to Hajara but reserving a for herself. Subsequently, Fathima approached the alleging that Hajara was not looking after her affairs. The Tribunal, after conciliation, ordered Hajara to pay monthly of ₹10,000. Notably, Fathima was residing with her son Ismail (respondent 6) and had four other living children.
The Legal Loophole: Daughter-in-Law Not a 'Child' Under the Act
The Court carefully examined Section 9 of the Act, which empowers the Tribunal to order from "children or relatives." Referring to the definitions under Sections 2(a) and 2(g), the Court observed that "children" includes son, daughter, grandson, and granddaughter but not a daughter-in-law. The term "relative" means a of a childless senior citizen. Since Fathima had other children, the daughter-in-law did not fall within the .
"I am of the opinion that a daughter-in-law has not been roped into the provisions of the statute."
Court Clarifies: Senior Citizens Cannot Pick and Choose
The petitioner's counsel argued that Fathima's other children were financially well-off and that the proceedings were selectively initiated only against the daughter-in-law. The Court agreed, noting that the respondents had not rebutted this claim.
"When the 2nd respondent has other children, the 2nd respondent may not be justified in picking and choosing the petitioner alone for payment of ."
The Court emphasized that the had overlooked this crucial aspect, especially since the petitioner was the wife of Fathima's deceased son.
What This Means for Families
The ruling clarifies that a imposing a duty on a daughter-in-law does not override the statutory framework, which limits liability to children and relatives as defined. The Court allowed the and quashed the 's order. However, since Hajara had been making payments since the order was passed, the Court directed that those amounts need not be refunded.
The judgment underscores that the Act's protective umbrella is intended for senior citizens who lack support from their own children, and it cannot be used to target daughters-in-law when other children are available and able to provide .
