कैरली हाई कोर्ट ने तय किया: वरिष्ठ नागरिक के जीवित बच्चों के होने पर बेटी‑इन‑लॉ पर रखरखाव की ज़िम्मेदारी नहीं

- Home

- /

- High Courts

- /

- Kerala High Court

- /

- Daughter-In-Law Not Liable When...

Daughter-In-Law Not Liable When Senior Citizen's Own Children Alive: Kerala High Court

K. Salma Jennath

13 Sept 2026 11:00 AM IST

The Kerala High Court recently held that a daughter-in-law is not liable under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 when the senior citizen's children are alive. [2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 499]Justice Harisankar V. Menon observed that a daughter-in-law would not fall within the definition of 'child' nor 'relative' under the Act when the senior citizen has other...

This is a premium content

Available exclusively to

Our subscribers

Subscribe Premium INR 1099+GST

Your support helps us to bring you more content at

an affordable subscription scheme !!!

All payment options available

The Kerala High Court recently held that a daughter-in-law is not liable under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 when the senior citizen's children are alive. [2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 499]

Justice Harisankar V. Menon observed that a daughter-in-law would not fall within the definition of 'child' nor 'relative' under the Act when the senior citizen has other children:

“A reading of Section 9 of the Act would show that it is only the “children or relatives who can be directed to make payment of monthly maintenance to the senior citizen”…I am of the opinion that a daughter-in-law has not been roped into the provisions of the statute. True, Section 2(g) of the Act defines the term “relative” as a legal heir of a childless senior citizen. However, since admittedly the 2nd respondent has other children, including the petitioner's deceased husband, even the provisions of Section 2(g) cannot be applied.”

The mother-in-law of the petitioner executed a settlement deed in her favour after the death of the petitioner's husband. Thereafter, referring to the settlement deed, the mother-in-law/2nd respondent approached the Maintenance Tribunal alleging that she was not being looked after. The Tribunal ordered the petitioner to pay Rs. 10,000 to her mother-in-law every month. Aggrieved, the petitioner came before the High Court.

The petitioner pointed out that the mother-in-law was residing with one of her four remaining children (respondents 3 to 6). The party respondents argued that the petitioner had a duty to maintain the mother-in-law in view of the settlement deed. Moreover, the petitioner has not even permitted the mother-in-law to enter the property conveyed or to enjoy the fruits therefrom, it was contended. Since the order was pursuant to conciliation, the Court ought not interfere, they said.

After hearing the parties, the Court noted that the proceedings before the Tribunal was only against the petitioner and none of her remaining children. It also took note of the fact that the party respondents did not rebut the petitioner's contention that they were in a financial position to maintain their mother.

Next, the Court referred to Sections 9 and 2(a), (g) and concluded that the Maintenance Tribunal cannot pass an order against a daughter-in-law to maintain her mother-in-law. Noting that the petitioner has been making payments to her mother-in-law since the passing of the impugned order, the Court observed that the same need not be refunded.

Thus, it disposed of the plea.

Case No: WP(C) No. 20466 of 2021

Case Title: Hajara v. The Maintenance Tribunal and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 499

Counsel for the petitioner: C. Bhaskaran

Counsel for the respondents: Cibi Thomas, Mintu Cherian - Government Pleader, Meenakshi V.S.

Powered by Nyaya 247 News