Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC: Who Is Entitled, How Much, and the Muslim Women’s Landmark Ruling
Maintenance law in India occupies the intersection of family welfare and social justice. The premise of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is simple and humane: a person who has the means to support their dependants must not be allowed to leave them in destitution. It is not a provision born out of punishment for the person who must pay. It is a provision that recognises a social and moral obligation and enforces it through a quick, accessible remedy available before a Magistrate rather than through the slower and more expensive route of civil courts.
Section 125 has been with us, in various forms, since the colonial era. Its secular character applying to all persons regardless of religion has made it one of the most litigated provisions in family law. The Supreme Court’s comprehensive guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2020) 4 SCC 309, its landmark ruling on Muslim women’s rights in Mohd. Abdul Samad v. State of Telangana, (2024), and continuing judicial expansion of who qualifies as a “wife” have kept the provision at the centre of family law discourse.
This article explains who is entitled to maintenance under Section 125, what standard courts apply when fixing the quantum, the critical 2024 Supreme Court ruling on Muslim women, and what Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 means for proceedings initiated after July 2024.
The Statutory Provision and Its Purpose
Section 125(1) of the CrPC provides that if any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife, his legitimate or illegitimate children who are unable to maintain themselves, or his parents who are unable to maintain themselves, a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to pay a monthly allowance for their maintenance.
The Supreme Court in Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316, stated the purpose with precision: the object of maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his neglect but to prevent the vagrancy and destitution of a deserted wife, by providing her food, clothing, and shelter by a speedy remedy. This understanding runs through all subsequent decisions and shapes how courts approach applications for maintenance.
The provision is expressly a measure of social justice. In ABC v. XYZ, 2025 INSC 129, the Supreme Court stated that the right to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is not a benefit received by a wife but a legal and moral duty owed by the husband. The language of benefit and charity is emphatically rejected.
Who Is Entitled: The Four Categories
Wife
A wife is entitled to maintenance if she is unable to maintain herself. The term “wife” includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband, provided she has not remarried. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the term should receive a broad and expansive interpretation. A woman who has lived with a man as his wife for a reasonably long period is entitled to a presumption of valid marriage, and strict proof of marriage should not be insisted upon as a precondition for maintenance.
Where the husband has concealed a prior marriage and induced a woman to enter into a second marriage with him, the second wife is still entitled to maintenance. The Supreme Court in ABC v. XYZ, 2025 INSC 129, held that the husband cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong by raising the contention that the second marriage is void. The court applied a beneficial interpretation of Section 125 to prevent vagrancy and destitution and to give legal sanction to the husband’s actual, accepted conduct.
The wife can be disentitled to maintenance if she is living in adultery, if she refuses without sufficient reason to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent. Courts examine these grounds carefully, recognising that a woman who refuses to live with her husband due to cruelty or threats does so with sufficient reason and is not disentitled.
Legitimate and Illegitimate Children
Children who are unable to maintain themselves are entitled to maintenance until they attain majority. An unmarried daughter who has attained majority is entitled to maintenance only if she is unable to maintain herself due to a physical or mental abnormality or injury. The Supreme Court clarified in Abhilasha v. Parkash, (2020) 4 SCC 7, that this entitlement for adult unmarried daughters is not automatic and requires proof of incapacity.
Parents
A father or mother who is unable to maintain themselves is entitled to claim maintenance from their children. This provision recognises the obligation of children toward aged or infirm parents who cannot support themselves.
The Quantum: The Rajnesh Guidelines
The single most comprehensive guidance on how courts should determine the quantum of maintenance came from the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2020) 4 SCC 309. Recognising that the law on maintenance was being applied unevenly across courts in India, the bench laid down binding directions that apply to all maintenance proceedings, at all levels, across the country.
The Court identified the following as the factors to be considered when determining the amount of maintenance:
The status and standard of living of the parties. Maintenance should be determined keeping in mind that the wife should live with the same standard she was accustomed to in the matrimonial home.
The reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children. This includes accommodation, food, clothing, healthcare, education of children, and similar necessities appropriate to the family’s standing.
The income and property of the parties, including both current earnings and potential earning capacity. The husband cannot understate income by producing a low salary slip if his actual standard of living demonstrates higher earnings.
Any personal income of the wife. A working wife is not automatically disentitled to maintenance, but her own income is taken into account in fixing the quantum. The test is whether her income is sufficient to allow her to maintain herself in the manner she was accustomed to.
The court also laid down practical directions on procedure: parties must file affidavits of disclosure setting out their assets, liabilities, and income; proceedings must be conducted expeditiously; and courts must ensure that maintenance is paid from the date of application, recognising that financial hardship begins at separation.
The Rajnesh guidelines are now applied in every Family Court across the country, and the Supreme Court has regularly corrected courts that deviate from them.
The Date from Which Maintenance Is Payable
Rajnesh v. Neha also clarified the date from which maintenance should ordinarily be paid. The Court held that maintenance should be awarded from the date of filing of the application, recognising that the financial hardship of the dependent begins at separation, not at the date of the order. Courts that award maintenance only from the date of the order fail to address the economic reality of the period during which the application was pending.
The Muslim Women Question: The 2024 Landmark Ruling
The application of Section 125 CrPC to Muslim women has been one of the most contentious issues in Indian family law for four decades. The controversy began with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, (1985) 2 SCC 556, which held that Muslim women are entitled to maintenance under Section 125 even after divorce, beyond the iddat period. The subsequent enactment of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 sought to limit this right for divorced Muslim women to the iddat period, with a “reasonable and fair provision” thereafter.
Courts debated for decades whether the 1986 Act displaced Section 125 for Muslim women or whether both remedies were available concurrently. The Supreme Court in Shabana Bano v. Imran Khan, (2010) 1 SCC 666, had held that a Muslim woman can seek maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, but the issue was not definitively settled.
On 10 July 2024, in Mohd. Abdul Samad v. State of Telangana and Another, the Supreme Court finally and definitively resolved the question. A two-judge bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih held that Section 125 CrPC is applicable to all women, including divorced Muslim women, and is not excluded by the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. Justice Nagarathna, in a separate but concurring judgment, stated that Section 125 CrPC would be applicable to all women and not just married women.
The Court held that the 1986 Act supplements, rather than replaces, the remedy under Section 125 CrPC. A Muslim woman who files a petition under Section 125 CrPC while married, and is subsequently divorced during the pendency of the petition, can continue the proceedings and also seek relief under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019. The 2019 Act provides additional remedies, and the bench confirmed that a divorced Muslim woman has multiple legal routes to claim maintenance.
This ruling ends a legal uncertainty that persisted for nearly four decades and affirms the secular, universal character of Section 125 CrPC.
The Transition to the BNSS
From 1 July 2024, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 replaces the CrPC. Section 125 CrPC is re-enacted as Section 144 of the BNSS. The substantive law, the categories of persons entitled, and the factors for determining quantum are preserved intact. Proceedings initiated after July 2024 are governed by Section 144 BNSS, while pending proceedings under Section 125 CrPC continue under the old provision. All Supreme Court precedents interpreting Section 125 CrPC apply with equal force to Section 144 BNSS.
One significant change in the BNSS is the addition of a timeline. Section 144(3) of the BNSS requires that proceedings under the section shall be disposed of within sixty days from the date of service of notice on the respondent. This is intended to address the prolonged delays that have historically plagued maintenance proceedings.
Interim Maintenance Under Section 125(3) / Section 144(3) BNSS
A Magistrate has the power to grant interim maintenance during the pendency of the final hearing. This interim relief is critical without it, the financial disparity between the parties would make it impossible for the dependent to sustain themselves or afford legal representation during the proceedings. Courts routinely grant interim maintenance at the first or second hearing based on a prima facie assessment of the parties’ circumstances.
Enforcement: Section 125(3) CrPC
Where a person fails to comply with a maintenance order without sufficient cause, the Magistrate may issue a warrant for levying the amount and may even sentence the defaulter to imprisonment for a term up to one month per month of default, subject to a maximum of one month for each month of non-payment. This enforcement mechanism gives the maintenance order teeth and makes it a practical, not merely theoretical, remedy.
Effect of Civil Court Decrees
A frequently litigated question is whether a civil court decree for maintenance or for restitution of conjugal rights affects the right to claim maintenance under Section 125. The Supreme Court in ABC v. XYZ, 2025 INSC 129, addressing a case where the husband had obtained a civil court decree, clarified that a decree for restitution of conjugal rights obtained after the maintenance order is passed by the Magistrate does not ipso facto disentitle the wife to maintenance. The husband must approach the Magistrate to seek modification of the order on this ground.
Practical Guidance for Applicants
The application under Section 125 is filed before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class or the Family Court (where established) at the place where the applicant resides or where the respondent resides, or where the parties last resided together. No court fee is payable for filing the application.
The application should set out: the fact of the domestic relationship or marriage; the husband’s income, assets, and standard of living; the applicant’s own financial position; the specific needs requiring maintenance; and a prayer for interim and final maintenance from the date of application.
Supporting documents salary slips or bank statements of the husband, evidence of assets such as property or vehicles, school or medical expenses of children significantly strengthen the application. The Rajnesh guidelines on affidavit disclosures should be followed to ensure the court has a complete picture of both parties’ financial positions.
Conclusion
Section 125 of the CrPC now Section 144 of the BNSS remains one of the most important social justice provisions in Indian law. Its breadth, its accessibility, its secular character, and the Supreme Court’s consistent expansion of its scope through decisions from Shah Bano through Rajnesh and the landmark 2024 ruling in Mohd. Abdul Samad make it the primary vehicle for enforcing the basic obligation of maintenance in Indian family life.
The 2025 Supreme Court decision in ABC v. XYZ affirming that maintenance is a legal duty, not a charity captures the provision’s essential philosophy. No person who has the means to support their dependants should be permitted to leave them without sustenance. Where they attempt to do so, the Magistrate has the power, and the obligation, to intervene and restore the equilibrium that the obligation of maintenance is meant to maintain.
