Sec 125 CrPC | Mother-in-Law not liable to maintain Daughter-in-Law: Telangana HC

The Telangana High Court has delivered a definitive ruling on the scope of maintenance liabilities, holding that a mother-in-law cannot be legally compelled to provide maintenance to her widowed daughter-in-law or grandchildren under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Bench underscored that statutory categories for maintenance are exhaustive and cannot be expanded by judicial interpretation, even when considering the beneficial nature of social welfare legislation.

Justice N. Tukaramji presided over the matter, which challenged the maintainability of maintenance proceedings initiated by a widowed daughter-in-law against her 69-year-old mother-in-law. The Telangana High Court examined whether the death of a husband could transfer the statutory obligation of maintenance to the mother-in-law under the existing criminal procedure framework.

Key Takeaways

Statutory Limitation of Liable Persons

Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 restricts maintenance liability to specific relationships—husband, father, and children—and does not include in-laws within its ambit.

Mother-in-Law's Non-Liability

There is no legal provision that transfers a deceased husband's maintenance obligation to his mother; such liability remains personal and statutory.

Distinct Statutory Schemes

While remedies might exist under personal laws like the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, these cannot be transposed into the summary proceedings of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Protection Against Abuse of Process

Continuing proceedings against a person who has no statutory liability to pay maintenance constitutes an abuse of the judicial process.

Court Observations and Directions

The Telangana High Court clarified that while the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is a tool for social justice, it does not allow for the creation of new liabilities. The Bench observed that the possession of assets or pension income by the mother-in-law does not substitute the requirement for a specific statutory relationship. Relying on the precedent in Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat ( "(1996) 4 SCC 479": 1996 CaseBase(SC) 1468), the bench noted that the beneficial object of the law cannot justify enlarging statutory categories.

The Telangana High Court discussed that "Section 125(1) Cr.P.C. specifies the classes of persons entitled to claim maintenance and the corresponding persons liable to maintain them... The provision does not create any statutory liability upon a mother-in-law to maintain her widowed daughter-in-law or the children of her deceased son. Although 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."

Ratio

Liability under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is strictly statutory and limited to the classes of persons expressly mentioned therein; a mother-in-law is not statutorily liable to maintain her widowed daughter-in-law or grandchildren, and such liability cannot be created by judicial expansion or transferred from the deceased husband's estate within these proceedings.

Background

The dispute originated when the second respondent, a widow, filed for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against her parents-in-law following the death of her husband in February 2022. She alleged that her in-laws retained her husband’s assets, insurance benefits, and dowry articles, leaving her and her two minor daughters without means of support. Initially filed against both parents-in-law, the case proceeded solely against the mother-in-law after the father-in-law’s demise during the pendency of the petition.

The mother-in-law moved the High Court seeking to quash the proceedings, arguing that she was a 69-year-old widow with no statutory obligation to maintain her daughter-in-law. The State and the respondent argued that the petitioner possessed substantial pension and properties and that the proceedings were necessary for the welfare of the minor children. However, the Telangana High Court distinguished between potential remedies under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 or the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and the specific requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Finding no legal basis for the claim against the mother-in-law, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed the maintenance case against her.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRIMINAL PETITION No.7097 OF 2024
Case Title: Peravali (Janapatla) Surya Kumari vs. The State of Telangana
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): M/s. T.L. Nayan Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, Additional Public Prosecutor

Source: 2026 CaseBase(TEL) 31245