Section 125 CrPC names who must maintain whom — and courts cannot stretch the list. In Peravali (Janapatla) Surya Kumari v. State of Telangana (Criminal Petition No. 7097 of 2024, decided 3 September 2026, reported late September), the Telangana High Court quashed maintenance proceedings brought by a widowed daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, holding that 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.”
The claim and how it changed shape
The claimant’s husband died in February 2022. She alleged that her parents-in-law then expelled her and her two minor daughters from the matrimonial home, withheld bank deposits, insurance proceeds and jewellery, and left her without support. She filed maintenance proceedings under Section 125 CrPC against both parents-in-law. When the father-in-law died during the pendency of the case, the proceedings continued against the mother-in-law alone — who moved the High Court to quash them as unmaintainable.
What the High Court held
The petition was allowed and the Section 125 proceedings against the mother-in-law quashed — with the Court noting that the widow’s other remedies in law remain open.
The remedies that do exist
The decision is about choosing the right defendant and the right statute, not about leaving widows remediless. The landscape looks like this:
| Route | Against whom | Key condition |
|---|---|---|
| Section 19, Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 | Father-in-law | She cannot maintain herself from her own earnings or property, or from the estate of her husband, parents or children; and he has means from coparcenary property in his hands from which she has not obtained a share |
| Succession (Hindu Succession Act, 1956) | The deceased husband’s estate | As a Class I heir, the widow takes her share of the husband’s property — including deposits and insurance proceeds wrongly withheld |
| Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 | Adult respondents in a domestic relationship | Requires the ingredients of domestic violence and a domestic relationship; monetary relief and residence orders can follow |
| Section 144, BNSS 2023 (for the children) | Depends on the claim | Minor grandchildren’s claims likewise cannot be fastened on a grandmother under this provision, per this decision |
Practical lessons
Section 125 CrPC corresponds to Section 144 of the BNSS, 2023, which carries the same closed list of relationships. The reasoning of this decision applies with equal force to petitions filed under the new code.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who can be made to pay maintenance under Section 125 CrPC / Section 144 BNSS?
The provision runs against a person with sufficient means who neglects or refuses to maintain his wife, his minor children, his adult children unable to maintain themselves due to abnormality or injury, or his father or mother. It does not list parents-in-law, and liability cannot be imposed on relationships the statute omits.
Does a widowed daughter-in-law have any maintenance remedy at all?
Yes. Section 19 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 gives a widowed daughter-in-law a limited claim against her father-in-law, to the extent he has means from coparcenary property in his hands out of which she has not obtained a share. Rights in the deceased husband's estate, succession claims, and — where its ingredients are met — the Domestic Violence Act may also be available.
Can financial capacity create a maintenance obligation?
No. The Court emphasised that liability under Section 125 is statutory; the fact that a relative is affluent does not generate an obligation the provision does not impose. Capacity becomes relevant only once a statutory duty exists.
What happens to such proceedings if the father-in-law dies during the case?
A claim properly framed against a father-in-law under Section 19 HAMA is a civil claim with its own rules; but Section 125 proceedings cannot simply continue against the mother-in-law in his place, because she was never within the provision — which is what occurred, and failed, in this case.