Blog

The law on maintenance in India is rooted in the principle that no family member should be left destitute due to neglect or refusal by another who has sufficient means. With the introduction of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the earlier provision of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) has been replaced with Section 144 BNSS. This transition retains the spirit of social justice while bringing in more procedural clarity, inclusivity, and enforceability.

Understanding Section 144 BNSS

The main objective of Section 144 BNSS is to protect the financial rights of dependent family members such as wives, children, and parents. It allows a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class to direct a person with sufficient means to provide maintenance to dependents who cannot maintain themselves.

This provision reflects India’s commitment to social welfare, ensuring that no dependent family member suffers due to neglect or abandonment.

Key goals of Section 144 BNSS:

1. Prevent destitution and homelessness of dependents

2. Ensure financial security and dignity of dependents

3. Provide a simple, fast, and enforceable legal remedy

4. Promote family responsibility and social harmony

Who Can Claim Maintenance under Section 144 BNSS

Section 144 of the BNSS clearly defines the categories of people entitled to claim maintenance:

Wife

1. A wife who is unable to maintain herself can claim maintenance from her husband.

2. The term “wife” includes a divorced woman who has not remarried.

3. If the husband remarries or lives with another woman, the wife’s refusal to live with him will be considered justified.

Minor Children

1. Legitimate or illegitimate minor children, whether married or not, can claim maintenance if they cannot maintain themselves.

2. Both sons and daughters are covered.

Children with Disabilities

1. Adult children, legitimate or illegitimate, who are unable to maintain themselves due to physical or mental abnormality or injury can claim maintenance.

2. Married daughters are not included in this category.

Parents

1. Fathers or mothers who cannot maintain themselves can claim maintenance from their children.

2. The obligation is not limited to sons; daughters are equally responsible.

Note: The provision is largely gender-neutral, allowing dependent parents and children to claim support from financially capable family members regardless of gender.

Key Features of Section 144 BNSS

Section 144 BNSS is not just a procedural replacement of Section 125 CrPC — it introduces clarity, timelines, and strengthened enforcement.

Judicial Authority

1. The power to grant maintenance rests with a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class.

2. Once neglect or refusal is proved, the Magistrate can order monthly maintenance at a reasonable rate.

Interim Maintenance

1. During the pendency of the case, the Magistrate can grant interim maintenance and expenses of the proceedings.

2. This ensures dependents don’t face financial hardship while the case is being decided.

3. Interim maintenance should, as far as possible, be disposed of within 60 days from the date of service of notice.

Commencement of Maintenance

1. Maintenance may be payable either from the date of the order or from the date of application, at the Magistrate’s discretion.

2. This flexibility helps cover delays and ensures fairness.

Enforcement of Maintenance Orders

1. If the defaulter fails to comply, the court can issue a warrant for recovery of the due amount.

2. If the amount remains unpaid, the Magistrate can order imprisonment up to one month or until payment is made.

3. A warrant must be issued within one year from the date the amount became due.

Justification for Refusal to Live Together

1. If a husband offers to maintain his wife on the condition that she lives with him, and she refuses, the Magistrate must examine her reasons.

2. If the refusal is justified (e.g., cruelty, second marriage, or ill-treatment), maintenance can still be granted.

Disqualifications for Claiming Maintenance

1. A wife is not entitled to maintenance if:

   1. She is living in adultery.

   2. She refuses to live with her husband without sufficient reason.

   3. They are living separately by mutual consent.

2. If these are proved after an order, the Magistrate must cancel the order.

Procedure for Seeking Maintenance

The procedure under Section 144 BNSS is designed to be accessible and efficient:

Step 1: Filing the Application

1. The dependent person or their authorized representative files an application before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class.

2. The application should be filed in the jurisdiction where the respondent resides or last resided.

Step 2: Notice and Appearance

1. The Magistrate issues a notice to the respondent.

2. The respondent must appear and submit a reply.

Step 3: Evidence and Hearing

1. Both parties present evidence of income, dependency, and neglect or refusal to maintain.

2. Documentary proof such as income statements, bank records, or testimonies may be presented.

Step 4: Interim Maintenance

• The Magistrate may order interim maintenance to ensure immediate support during the pendency of the case.

Step 5: Final Order

1. Based on evidence, the Magistrate determines a reasonable monthly allowance.

2. The order is binding and enforceable by law.

Factors Considered for Determining Maintenance Amount

While deciding the maintenance amount, the Magistrate considers:

1. Income and financial status of the person liable to pay

2. Reasonable needs of the dependent person

3. Standard of living enjoyed during the relationship or marriage

4. Number of dependents and existing liabilities of the payer

5. Health condition and special needs of dependents

6. Cost of living and inflation in the area

Example: If a husband earns ₹1 lakh per month and has no other dependents, the court may fix maintenance at around ₹25,000–₹30,000 for the wife, depending on circumstances.

The idea is to ensure the dependent lives with dignity and not in financial hardship.

Enforcement of Maintenance Orders under Section 144 BNSS

Section 144 provides strong enforcement tools to ensure compliance.

If the payer defaults:

1. The Magistrate may issue a warrant to recover the amount like a fine under criminal law.

2. If the amount remains unpaid, the person may face imprisonment up to one month for each month of default.

3. Repeated defaults can lead to repeated imprisonment orders.

Protection for dependents:

1. Dependents can approach the court again in case of non-payment.

2. Legal remedies are available to secure arrears with interest if the court directs.

Modification and Cancellation of Orders

Maintenance orders are not permanent; they can be modified or canceled:

• Change in financial circumstances: If the income or expenses of either party change, the Magistrate may revise the amount.

• Remarriage of wife: Maintenance stops automatically if the wife remarries.

• Adultery or mutual consent: Proven adultery or separation by consent can lead to cancellation of the order.

• Change in dependent’s condition: If a child becomes financially independent, maintenance may be discontinued.

This flexibility keeps the system fair and relevant.

Judicial Interpretations and Landmark Cases

Judicial precedents have played a crucial role in shaping maintenance law in India. Here are some significant cases:

Kusum Sharma v. Mahinder Kumar Sharma (2015)

1. The court emphasized that maintenance must ensure dignity and a decent standard of living, not mere survival.

2. Parties were directed to file detailed affidavits of assets and liabilities to ensure fair determination of amount.

Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan (2015)

1. The Supreme Court observed that maintenance is a legal right, not charity.

2. A wife is entitled to the same level of comfort as in her matrimonial home.

Dr. Avnish Pawar v. Dr. Sunita Pawar (2000)

1. Maintenance should be proportionate to the payer’s actual income.

2. The court emphasized a balanced approach, considering both the dependent’s needs and the payer’s capacity.

These judgments guide courts in applying Section 144 BNSS with fairness and humanity.

Comparison: Section 144 BNSS vs. Section 125 CrPC

In short, Section 144 BNSS modernizes the existing law without diluting its welfare objective.

Practical Tips for Claiming or Defending Maintenance

1. Collect evidence of income, expenses, and dependency early.

2. File the application in the correct jurisdiction.

3. If you’re a claimant, request interim maintenance to avoid financial hardship.

4. If you’re a respondent, submit true financial disclosures to avoid exaggerated orders.

5. Maintenance orders are modifiable — if your circumstances change, approach the court.

Social Importance of Maintenance Law

The maintenance law reflects India’s constitutional values of equality and social justice. It:

1. Protects vulnerable dependents like women, children, and the elderly

2. Prevents social problems like homelessness, destitution, and neglect

3. Encourages family responsibility and accountability

4. Supports women’s rights and child welfare

5. Promotes dignity and human security

This makes Section 144 BNSS not just a legal provision but a pillar of social protection.

Common Misconceptions

Conclusion

Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is a progressive step in strengthening maintenance law in India. While retaining the essence of Section 125 CrPC, it introduces more clarity, timelines, and enforcement measures.

This law ensures that:

1. No dependent family member is left destitute

2. Maintenance is treated as a right, not charity

3. Legal remedies are faster and more efficient

4. Social justice principles are upheld

For anyone neglected or financially abandoned, Section 144 BNSS offers a strong legal remedy to secure dignity and financial stability.
And for those responsible, it underscores a legal and moral duty to support their dependents.

Introduction

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has reinforced the fundamental principle that maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) must be awarded from the date the application is filed.
This significant decision aims to protect vulnerable spouses and children from unjust suffering due to procedural delays.

The Court’s verdict not only underscores the true spirit of Section 125 CrPC but also emphasizes that applicants must not be penalized for the slow pace of the judicial process. In this blog, we will explore the background of the case, the legal arguments, the Court's detailed analysis, and the broader implications of this important ruling.

Understanding Section 125 CrPC: A Brief Overview

Before delving into the judgment, it’s essential to understand what Section 125 CrPC entails.

Section 125 CrPC provides a legal remedy for wives, children, and parents who are unable to maintain themselves.
It empowers a Magistrate to order a person with sufficient means to pay a monthly allowance as maintenance to dependents who are neglected or refused support.

The objective of this provision is simple yet profound — to prevent destitution and ensure a basic standard of living for vulnerable individuals who cannot fend for themselves.

Section 125 CrPC is not based on any personal laws of marriage; it is a secular law applicable to all citizens irrespective of religion, caste, or creed.

Background of the Case: Facts at a Glance

The case before the Supreme Court had the following essential facts:

• Marriage: The appellant (wife) and the respondent (husband) were married on 24th September 2002 according to Islamic customs.

• Children: Two children were born from the marriage.

• Allegations: The appellant alleged that she was subjected to cruelty and dowry harassment, and was eventually thrown out of the matrimonial home in May 2008 along with her children.

• Maintenance Petition: She filed a petition under Section 125 CrPC seeking ₹5,000 for herself and ₹1,000 each for the two children per month.

The Family Court partially granted her request — awarding maintenance only to the children while denying maintenance to the wife.

The High Court upheld the Family Court’s decision, citing that the wife had left the matrimonial home "without sufficient cause."

Key Issues Before the Supreme Court

The main issues raised before the Supreme Court were:

1. Was the appellant-wife rightly denied maintenance under Section 125 CrPC?

2. What should be the correct date for awarding maintenance — date of application or date of court order?

3. Were the amounts awarded to the children adequate and fair, considering the cost of living and respondent’s financial capacity?

Arguments by the Appellant

The appellant-wife argued:

1. She was illiterate and had no independent means of income.

2. She had been subjected to cruelty and dowry demands by the husband.

3. There was no basis to conclude that she left the matrimonial home without sufficient reason.

4. The maintenance awarded to the children was insufficient considering inflation and the improved financial status of the husband.

Response by the Respondent and the State

The respondent (husband) and the State defended the earlier judgments, arguing:

1. The appellant had voluntarily left the matrimonial home.

2. The Family Court and High Court had already considered the evidence carefully and denied her maintenance.

The Supreme Court’s Analysis and Reasoning

The Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah took a critical view of the lower courts' approach and delivered a comprehensive analysis.

1. Presumption Against Dowry Demands Was Incorrect

The Family Court had assumed that since it was a second marriage for both parties, there could be no dowry harassment.
The Supreme Court condemned this reasoning as purely speculative and contrary to law.

Key Observation:

"Courts must decide cases based on evidence and applicable legal principles, not sermonize on morality."

The Court cited Nagarathinam v. State, highlighting that courts must avoid conjecture and base decisions strictly on facts presented.

2. Reliance on the 2005 Compromise Deed Was Misplaced

The Family Court heavily relied on a compromise deed signed between the parties in 2005.
The Supreme Court pointed out that the compromise deed contained no admission of guilt or misconduct by the wife.

Thus, it was wrong to deny her maintenance based on a mere compromise document without adequate evidence.

3. Right to Maintenance Recognized

The Court emphasized that the appellant had a legitimate claim to maintenance.
She was dependent on the husband and was driven out due to cruelty and harassment, as established by the circumstances and evidence.

4. Date of Maintenance — Clarified

The Supreme Court strongly reiterated that maintenance must ordinarily be awarded from the date of filing the application — not from the date of the court's order.

In doing so, it relied heavily on its earlier decision in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324.

Key Excerpt from Rajnesh v. Neha:

"It would be in the interests of justice and fair play that maintenance is awarded from the date of the application."

Thus, the applicant should not suffer for judicial delays, and her financial sustenance should not be made dependent on the pace of court proceedings.

The Final Judgment: Relief for the Appellant

Based on its analysis, the Supreme Court delivered a firm and fair order:

1. Maintenance of ₹4,000 per month awarded to the appellant-wife.

2. The maintenance amount payable from the date of filing of the original maintenance petition — not from the date of Family Court's judgment.

3. Maintenance for the two children payable from the date of application, continuing until the daughter attains the age of majority.

4. Any arrears of maintenance must be cleared within four months, after adjusting any payments already made.

The appeal was allowed, and the lower court’s and High Court’s judgments were set aside.

Importance of This Ruling

This Supreme Court ruling is not just about one case — it has broader implications for thousands of pending maintenance cases across India.

Here’s why this judgment is crucial:

1. Protecting Applicants from Judicial Delays

The judicial system often experiences delays due to case backlogs.
This judgment ensures that women and children are not left starving because courts take time to pass orders.

2. Reinforcement of Section 125 CrPC’s True Purpose

Section 125 CrPC was enacted as a welfare measure, to prevent destitution.
This judgment reaffirms that maintenance proceedings must be beneficial to applicants, not an added burden.

3. Better Financial Security for Women and Children

Applicants can now claim arrears from the date of application, ensuring that the maintenance amount accumulated over the litigation period is paid.

4. Setting a Precedent

Lower courts must now align with this ruling and, in most cases, award maintenance from the application date itself unless special reasons exist.

Legal Takeaways for Future Cases

• Section 125 CrPC must be interpreted liberally and purposively to achieve its goal.

• Applicants must not be blamed for system delays.

• Maintenance must be adequate and consider inflation and economic conditions.

• Courts must avoid moral judgments and focus on facts and evidence.

Practical Tips for Maintenance Applicants

If you are planning to file or have filed a maintenance application, here are a few important points:

• Document Evidence: Always keep evidence of cruelty, dowry harassment, or neglect.

• Mention Date of Filing Clearly: Ensure the application mentions the financial distress from the date of filing.

• Highlight Financial Condition: Clearly state your lack of income or dependency on the spouse.

• Seek Arrears: During arguments, request maintenance from the date of filing, citing this Supreme Court judgment.

Related Precedents and Case Laws

• Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 – Maintenance should generally be awarded from the date of application.

• Nagarathinam v. State – Courts must decide on evidence, not presumptions.

• Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316 – Maintenance is a basic human right and should not be denied on technicalities.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling is a vital step toward ensuring that justice is not denied merely because it is delayed.
By holding that maintenance under Section 125 CrPC should be paid from the date of the application, the Court has reinforced the welfare objectives underlying the law and provided much-needed protection to dependent spouses and children.

This judgment will serve as a beacon of hope for countless women and children awaiting financial support through legal proceedings.
It also sends a strong message that justice must be timely, fair, and beneficial — not bogged down by technicalities or judicial delays.

Ultimately, Section 125 CrPC is about dignity, survival, and social justice — and this judgment upholds these principles in their truest sense.