The Telangana High Court has quashed maintenance proceedings against a mother-in-law, holding that Section 125 CrPC does not make her liable to maintain either her widowed daughter-in-law or her deceased son's children.

Her financial means or alleged possession of the deceased's assets could not create a liability absent from the provision, the Court said.

Justice N. Tukaramji observed:

“Section 125(1) Cr.P.C. specifies the classes of persons entitled to claim maintenance and the corresponding persons liable to maintain them, namely, a wife against her husband, minor children against their father, and a father or mother against a person liable to maintain them. The provision does not create any statutory liability upon a mother-inlaw to maintain her widowed daughter-in-law or the children of her deceased son"

The court said that though Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a beneficial measure of social justice intended to prevent destitution and vagrancy, its beneficial object cannot justify enlarging the statutory categories or creating a liability against a person not contemplated by the provision. 

The daughter-in-law filed a maintenance case after her husband died in February 2022. She alleged that her parents-in-law had driven her and her two minor daughters from the matrimonial home and retained bank deposits, insurance benefits, jewellery and other assets. Claiming that she had no independent income, she sought monthly maintenance, additional expenses and other reliefs.

The father-in-law died while the proceedings were pending, leaving the mother-in-law, Peravali (Janapatla) Surya Kumari, to face the claim. She petitioned the High Court to quash the case against her.

T.L. Nayan Kumar, appearing for the mother-in-law, argued that Section 125 imposed no maintenance obligation on her. Additional Public Prosecutor Syed Yasar Mamoon opposed the petition, pointing to the daughter-in-law's lack of income, the children's needs and allegations that the mother-in-law possessed substantial property and benefits from the deceased's estate.

The Court held that Section 125 specifies both who may claim maintenance and who is liable to pay it. It does not place a mother-in-law under an obligation to maintain a widowed daughter-in-law or grandchildren. A person's sufficient means become relevant only after a statutory obligation to maintain is established.

The Court noted that Section 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, provides a conditional remedy for a widowed daughter-in-law against her father-in-law, but imposes no equivalent liability on her mother-in-law. That remedy could not be imported into Section 125 proceedings. Nor did the father-in-law's death transfer any statutory liability to his wife.

The pending domestic violence proceedings did not change the position. The Court said that different maintenance laws provide distinct remedies, and their possible overlap does not expand the classes of persons liable under Section 125.

The Court allowed the petition and quashed the maintenance proceedings insofar as they concerned the mother-in-law. It clarified that allegations about property or assets could be pursued through other remedies available in law.

Case Title: X v. State of Telangana & Ors.

Case No.: Criminal Petition No. 7097 of 2024

Date: September 3, 2026

Appearance: T.L. Nayan Kumar for the petitioner; Syed Yasar Mamoon, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State.

Click Here To Read/Download Order