Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC / Section 144 BNSS
An advocate seeking maintenance for a wife and minor child under Section 125 CrPC or Section 144 BNSS must establish that the husband has sufficient means yet neglects or refuses to maintain them, and that the wife is unable to maintain herself. The husband may resist the claim by arguing that the wife left his company without reasonable cause, or that she is capable of earning and therefore not entitled to an order. The court must then determine whether the refusal to maintain is justified and fix a suitable monthly allowance.
Courts approach maintenance as a measure of social justice, weighing the husband's income, the wife's reasonable needs, and the child's welfare. In Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr., the Supreme Court stressed the need for financial disclosure and directed that maintenance can be awarded from the date of application to prevent delay from defeating the remedy. When a husband pleads that the wife is working, the court examines whether her income is sufficient for her own support; the mere fact of employment does not automatically bar relief. The quantum is fixed after considering the status of the parties and the husband's capacity to pay, as reflected in the directions given in Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr.
The leading cases
12 judgments · 12 Supreme Court · most-cited first
What LexPilot's research engine returns for this question, ranked by court and how often each judgment has been cited since. Read the full judgment before you rely on a holding.
- 1
Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. and Ors.
2007 INSC 1243Supreme Court · 2007cited 3,669 times
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It held that an aggrieved person has no right to insist on investigation by a particular agency like the CBI; he can only claim a proper investigation. The Court elaborated on…
- 2
Ramgopal & Anr. v. the State of Madhya Pradesh
2021 INSC 568Supreme Court · 2021cited 1,992 times
The Supreme Court held: (1) Section 320 CrPC does not bar the High Court from exercising its inherent powers under s. 482 CrPC to quash non-compoundable offences on the basis of a genuine compromise; the two provisions…
- 3
Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr.
2020 INSC 631Supreme Court · 2020cited 1,767 times
The Supreme Court affirmed the Family Court's orders granting interim maintenance; the husband was directed to pay entire arrears within 12 weeks and to continue complying during pendency of s. 125 CrPC proceedings…
- 4
Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors.
1987 INSC 54Supreme Court · 1987cited 1,140 times
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that sufficient cause existed for condoning the delay. The Court emphasized a liberal and justice-oriented approach in interpreting 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of…
- 5
Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors.
2022 INSC 163Supreme Court · 2022cited 876 times
The FIR levelled only a general and omnibus allegation — that "all accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy" — without attributing any specific or distinct role to any of the four…
- 6
Ex. Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India and Anr
2002INSC523Supreme Court · 2002cited 810 times
Lawyers have no right to go on strike or call for boycott of courts, not even on a token strike. Protest can only be through peaceful means like press statements, marches, dharnas, etc. Lawyers holding Vakalat cannot…
- 7
Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar & Ors
1984 INSC 80Supreme Court · 1984cited 753 times
The Supreme Court (majority) allowed the petition and quashed the detention order. The Court held that the petitioner was not an 'anti-social element' as defined under section 2(d) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act…
- 8
Basawaraj & Anr. v. the Spl. Land Acquisition Officer
2013 INSC 551Supreme Court · 2013cited 682 times
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the High Court was justified in dismissing the time-barred appeals. The delay of 5-1/2 years was inordinate, and the explanation of one appellant's illness did not…
- 9
N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy
1998 INSC 345Supreme Court · 1998cited 672 times
The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in upsetting the trial court's order condoning the delay. The explanation for the delay was satisfactory, and the appellant's conduct did not warrant being castigated as…
- 10
Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh
2001 INSC 515Supreme Court · 2001cited 643 times
The conviction under Section 306 IPC is set aside as there was no evidence of abetment by instigation. The accused telling the deceased she was free to go wherever she liked, in the context of a domestic quarrel, did…
- 11
N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha
2022 INSC 1310Supreme Court · 2022cited 625 times
Transfer under s.24 CPC is warranted where the ends of justice so demand; in matrimonial matters the wife's convenience is generally the primary consideration given India's socio-economic realities; multiple…
- 12
State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani and Ors.
1996 INSC 150Supreme Court · 1996cited 564 times
The delay of 109 days was explained and constituted sufficient cause for condonation. The expression 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act must be construed liberally with a justice-oriented…
Frequently asked questions
Can a wife who is capable of earning still claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC?
Yes. The test is whether the wife is actually able to maintain herself from her own income. If her earnings are insufficient to meet her reasonable needs, the court may still award maintenance after examining her income and the husband's capacity to pay, as indicated in Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr.
From which date can maintenance be awarded under Section 125 CrPC?
Maintenance can be awarded from the date of the application. The Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr. directed that courts may grant maintenance from the date of filing to ensure that the purpose of the provision is not frustrated by procedural delays.
How do courts fix the quantum of maintenance for a wife and minor child?
The quantum is not a fixed percentage. Courts assess the husband's net income, the wife's reasonable needs, the cost of living, and the child's educational and medical expenses. Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr. emphasises full disclosure of assets and liabilities by both parties to arrive at a just amount.
What happens if the husband claims the wife left the matrimonial home without reasonable cause?
If the husband proves the wife is living separately without sufficient reason, she may be disqualified from receiving maintenance. However, the court will examine whether the wife's departure was justified by circumstances such as cruelty or neglect, and the husband's mere assertion is not enough to defeat the claim.
Free trial · Research assistance, not legal advice — always read the judgment before you rely on it.
More on family & matrimonial
- Child Custody and Visitation under the Guardians and Wards Act and Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act
- Divorce on the Ground of Cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act
- Daughters’ Rights in Coparcenary Property under Hindu Succession Act
- Partition of Joint Family Property
- Transfer of Matrimonial Petition Under Section 24 CPC