The Telangana High Court has quashed maintenance proceedings under Section 125 of the CrPC against a 69-year-old mother-in-law, holding that the provision creates no liability on a mother-in-law to maintain her widowed daughter-in-law or the children of her deceased son, while noting that other remedies remain open to the claimants.
Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court has quashed maintenance proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), insofar as they were continued against a mother-in-law, holding that the provision creates no statutory liability on a mother-in-law to maintain her widowed daughter-in-law or the children of her deceased son [Peravali (Janapatla) Surya Kumari v. State of Telangana and Others].
Justice N. Tukaramji allowed the criminal petition filed under Section 482 CrPC and held that the proceedings in M.C. No. 92 of 2022 on the file of the Family Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, were not maintainable against the petitioner. The Court said its conclusion does not leave the widowed daughter-in-law without a remedy.
The case
The widowed daughter-in-law had filed the maintenance case in 2022 for herself and her two minor daughters, after the death of her husband on February 12, 2022. She had married the petitioner’s son on December 9, 2012. She alleged that substantial dowry, gold and silver ornaments and household articles were given at the marriage and remained with the petitioner and her husband, that she was not allowed to take up employment despite being highly educated, and that she was harassed. After her husband’s death, she alleged, the harassment continued and she was driven out of the matrimonial home.
She further alleged that the petitioner and her husband retained her late husband’s bank deposits, insurance benefits, land documents, jewellery and other assets, and that she had no independent income while the in-laws had properties and pension income. She sought maintenance of Rs 1,00,000 per month, additional expenses of Rs 20,000, permanent alimony of Rs 1 crore and costs. During the case, the petitioner’s husband, the claimant’s father-in-law, passed away, and the proceedings continued against the petitioner alone. These are allegations and have not been adjudicated, and the claimant has also filed a domestic violence case, DVC No. 10 of 2023, against the petitioner.
What the parties argued
Counsel T.L. Nayan Kumar, appearing for the petitioner, argued that Section 125 neither contemplates nor authorises a claim for maintenance against a mother-in-law, that proceedings under it lie only against a person statutorily liable to pay, and that continuing the case against a 69-year-old widow with no such liability was an abuse of the process of law. He also pointed to the pending domestic violence case seeking similar reliefs.
Additional Public Prosecutor Syed Yasar Mamoon opposed the petition for the State, submitting that the case was filed because the claimant and her minor children could not maintain themselves after her husband’s death, and that the petitioner, as a parent-in-law with pension income and substantial properties, was financially capable of maintaining them. He submitted that the pendency of the domestic violence case did not by itself make the maintenance case untenable, and that quashing it only because the petitioner is a mother-in-law would deprive the claimant and her children of their livelihood.
The Court’s reasoning
Justice Tukaramji framed the question as whether a mother-in-law can be proceeded against under Section 125 for maintenance claimed by her widowed daughter-in-law and the minor children of her deceased son. He noted that Section 125(1) specifies who may claim and who is liable, namely a wife against her husband, minor children against their father, and a father or mother against the person liable to maintain them, and that it creates no liability on a mother-in-law.
The Court accepted that Section 125 is a beneficial measure meant to prevent destitution and vagrancy, but held that its object cannot justify enlarging the statutory categories or creating liability against a person the provision does not contemplate. It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat, which held that the statutory relationship of “mother” in Section 125(1)(d) cannot be extended merely by invoking the provision’s beneficial object, and said the principle applies equally to a mother-in-law.
The Court further held that the petitioner’s alleged properties, pension or possession of the deceased’s assets cannot by themselves create liability under Section 125, because sufficient means matter only where a person is otherwise statutorily liable. It added that the death of the petitioner’s husband did not transfer to her any liability that the statute had not imposed.
Other remedies remain
The Court pointed out that the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA) provides a specific remedy: Section 19, subject to its conditions, recognises the right of a widowed daughter-in-law to claim maintenance from her father-in-law, but it imposes no equivalent liability on a mother-in-law. That remedy, it held, cannot be transposed into Section 125 proceedings, as the two operate under different statutory schemes.
The Court also held that the Supreme Court’s decision in Rajnesh v. Neha, which called for harmonising maintenance proceedings under different statutes and for disclosure and adjustment where parallel orders exist, did not enlarge the classes of persons liable under Section 125. It added that the pendency of proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act does not by itself make a Section 125 case maintainable or non-maintainable, since the remedies operate under different frameworks, subject to disclosure and adjustment of overlapping monetary reliefs. The allegations about the petitioner’s means and the deceased’s assets, it said, may give rise to such other remedies as the law provides, but cannot create liability under Section 125.
The order
Holding that, in the absence of statutory liability, continuing the proceedings against the petitioner would be an abuse of the process of the Court, Justice Tukaramji allowed the criminal petition. The proceedings in M.C. No. 92 of 2022 were held not maintainable under Section 125 CrPC and were quashed insofar as they concern the petitioner, and all pending miscellaneous applications were closed.
Why it matters
The ruling keeps Section 125 within its statutory categories, even in a case where a widowed daughter-in-law and minor children say they have no means of support. It draws a line between the summary maintenance remedy under the CrPC and the claims available under HAMA and the domestic violence law, and it leaves those other remedies open.
The order does not decide the claimant’s allegations about dowry, harassment or the retention of her late husband’s assets, and it does not examine whether she and the children are entitled to relief in other proceedings. The Court’s holding is confined to whether Section 125 can be invoked against a mother-in-law.
Case Title: Peravali (Janapatla) Surya Kumari v. State of Telangana and Others [Criminal Petition No. 7097 of 2024]
Bench: Justice N. Tukaramji, Telangana High Court
Date of Order: September 3, 2026
Appearances: Counsel T.L. Nayan Kumar appeared for the petitioner, and Additional Public Prosecutor Syed Yasar Mamoon appeared for the State of Telangana.