In Sadashiv vs Vijayalaxmi , a widow filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. against her father-in-law for maintenance and the same was allowed by the Family Court. Allowing the appeal, the Karnataka High Court observed that the maintenance petition against the father-in-law is not maintainable. It referred to the following observations made in an earlier decision in Subhaschandra vs Indubai 2004 (2) KLJ 397 : To interpret that the word “daughter” includes “daughter-in-law” or the word “child” includes “grandchildren” (son includes grandson) or the word “father” includes “grandfather” or “father-in-law” will be doing harm to the said words, more so, when persons for whom the said provision is provided is kept in mind. No authority or law has been brought to my notice so as to interpret and hold that Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. covers the case of daughter-in-law against father-in-law or the case of a grandson against grandfather. This can be said even on a plain reading of the said provision contained in Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. It need not be said that nothing can be added or deleted while interpreting a statute. It is true that Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. is brought in the Statute book so as to provide relief to the persons, who are unable to maintain themselves and neglected or refused maintenance by person having sufficient means. But, it cannot be stretched to hold that persons other than the persons mentioned are also covered by the said provision of law to provide maintenance from persons, not liable to provide maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. In the above view, I have no hesitation to hold that the respondents herein could not have maintained any claim against the petitioner herein i.e., as daughter-in-law and grandson could not have maintained their claim of maintenance from father-in-law and grandfather respectively, under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. though, of course, they have right to claim maintenance from such person also under Hindu Law and not under Section 125 of the Cr, P.C.