Asha Rani Vs Ranjit Singh on 11 Dec 2024

Posted on April 12 by ShadesOfKnife

A single Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court held as follows,

From Para 8,

8. However, it is admitted fact on record that the petitioner is a qualified MA (in Punjabi) and B.Ed. On a Court query, learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted that the petitioner is not working despite being able bodied. When questioned as to why the petitioner is not working, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was previously giving tuitions. However, now since she is residing with her parents in the village, she is unable to give any tuitions. When it is pointed out that even the children in villages study and therefore need tuitions, learned counsel submits that people in villages do not have high paying capacity. However, when it is pointed out that the petitioner can always take online tuitions in village also, learned counsel for the petitioner has no reply.

From Para 12,

12. It is my considered view that it is first and foremost duty of the petitioner to maintain herself. The ennoble purpose of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is not to spawn idle wives, and to foist the entire burden upon the hapless husband; but is to protect abandoned wives who are unable to maintain themselves from vagrancy and destitution. A bare reading of Section 125 Cr.P.C. itself indicates that maintenance is admissible to a wife who is ‘unable to maintain herself’. In the present case, that is not so.

Asha Rani Vs Ranjit Singh on 11 Dec 2024

Citations:

Other Sources:

https://mynation.net/docs/1558-2024/ (Thanks to MyNation _/\_)

Index of Maintenance Judgments u/s 144 BNSS is here.

Sunita Kachwaha and Ors Vs Anil Kuchwaha on 28 Oct 2014

Posted on April 5 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court held as follows,

From para 9,

9. Inability to maintain herself is the precondition for grant of maintenance to the wife. The wife must positively aver and prove that she is unable to maintain herself, in addition to the fact that her husband has sufficient means to maintain her and that he has neglected to maintain her. In her evidence, the appellant wife has stated that only due to help of her retired parents and brothers, she is able to maintain herself and her daughters. Where the wife states that she has great hardships in maintaining herself and the daughters, while her husband’s economic condition is quite good, the wife would be entitled to maintenance.

Sunita Kachwaha and Ors Vs Anil Kuchwaha on 28 Oct 2014

Citations: [AIR 2015 SUPREME COURT 554]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/3786357/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af48e4b01497114160aa

Index of Maintenance Judgments under 144 BNSS is here.

Paul George Vs Emarin Paul on 12 Mar 2025

Posted on March 29 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Kerala High Court held that a deserter wife not entitled to claim maintenance.

From Para 6,

6. As stated already, M.C.No.354 of 2017 has been tried along with G.O.(P) Nos.1621 of 2016 & 1334 of 2017. As per the common order, the guardianship of the child was given to the petitioner. A reading of the common order would show that the petitioner specifically contended that the respondent left the matrimonial home without any reason on 16.11.2015, abandoning their 2½-year-old child there and never returned thereafter. The respondent has admitted that she left the matrimonial home on that day. But her contention is that she was forced to leave the matrimonial home and started to live separately due to the ill-treatment of the petitioner. The parties let in evidence regarding these rival contentions. The Family Court, after considering the evidence on record, concluded that the respondent left the matrimonial home leaving the child there without any reason. In paragraph 27 of the common order, there is a finding that even though the respondent has raised a contention that she left the petitioner due to ill-treatment, there is no evidence of any ill-treatment and there was not even a complaint by the respondent against the petitioner before any police. In paragraph 31 of the common order, there is a specific finding that the respondent left the matrimonial home with the definite intention to teach a lesson to the petitioner, and absolutely, there is no evidence to show that she was ill-treated by the petitioner as alleged by the respondent. Thus, there is clear evidence on record to show that the respondent has been living separately since 16.11.2015 without any sufficient reason. That apart, O.P.No.1618 of 2016, filed by the petitioner seeking divorce on the grounds of desertion and cruelty, was allowed on those grounds.

From Para 7,

7. The primary object of marriage, while varying across cultures and beliefs, often encompasses forming a legal and social unit providing companionship and emotional support apart from procreation and raising of children. Marriage brings with it specific rights and liabilities for both husband and wife. Marriage involves a commitment to live together and fulfil the responsibilities inherent in the marital relationship. The primary
duty of parties in marriage is to live together and fulfil their marital obligations. The right to each other’s society, comfort and affection, often referred to as ‘consortium’ is a fundamental aspect of marriage. Withdrawal from society of the other would mean withdrawal from marital obligation by either spouse.

From Para 8,

8. A husband is legally and morally bound to provide maintenance to his wife. The right of the wife to be maintained by the husband stems from the corresponding obligation to perform marital duty. Section 125 (1) (a) of Cr.PC (Section 144 (1) (a) of BNSS) provides maintenance to the wife who is unable to maintain herself. However, the right of the wife to claim maintenance from her husband, who has sufficient means, is not absolute. It is subject to sub-section (4) of Section 125 (Section 144 (4) of BNSS). A wife who chooses to live separately without sufficient reason is disentitled to maintenance under Section 125(4) of Cr.PC (Section 144 (4) of BNSS). It is crucial to assess whether the wife’s decision to live separately is based on valid grounds. If valid grounds, such as cruelty or desertion, exist, she may still claim maintenance despite living apart. In cases where the wife refuses to live with the husband without any just cause and there is no evidence of ill-treatment by the husband, the wife is not entitled to maintenance.

Paul George Vs Emarin Paul on 12 Mar 2025

Citations:

Other Sources:

Index of Maintenance Judgments us here.

N.Usha Rani and Anr Vs Moodudula Srinivas on 30 Jan 2025

Posted on March 28 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Supreme Court passed this judgment…

From Para 3, (Madam is very planned: MOU signed with First Husband on 25-Nov-2005; Remarriage with Second Husband on 27-Nov-2005; And someone said our judges are blind-fucks)

3. The facts of the case reveal that Appellant No.1 before this Court – Smt. N. Usha Rani married one Nomula Srinivas on 30.08.1999 at Hyderabad. During the period of their wedlock, she gave birth to a male child, namely, Sai Ganesh on 15.08.2000. The couple lived together until disputes arose between them. Following their return from the United States of America in February 2005, they began living separately. Eventually, on 25.11.2005, a Memorandum of Understanding (‘MoU’) was executed between the couple, dissolving their marriage. Meanwhile, Appellant No. 1 got acquainted with her neighbour,the Respondent, and the couple got married on 27.11.2005.

From Para 10,

10. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. The short question before us is whether a woman is entitled to claim maintenance u/s. 125 CrPC from her second husband while her first marriage is allegedly legally subsisting.

From Paras 17 and 18, (Dripping and Simping Wokeism… Thuuu)

17. This encapsulates the full scope and gravity of considerations before this Court as we deliberate on the issue at hand. The present case does not concern a live-in relationship. The Family Court made a factual finding that Appellant No. 1 married the Respondent and that finding is not disputed by the Respondent. Instead, the Respondent seeks to defeat the right to maintenance by claiming that his marriage to Appellant No. 1 is void ab initio as her first marriage is still subsisting. Two other pertinent facts must be considered: firstly, it is not the case of the Respondent that the truth was concealed from him. In fact, the Family Court makes a specific finding that Respondent was fully aware of the first marriage of the Appellant No. 1. Therefore, Respondent knowingly entered into a marriage with Appellant No. 1 not once, but twice. Secondly, Appellant No. 1 places before this Court an MoU of separation with her first husband. While this is not a legal decree of divorce, it also emerges from this document and other evidence that the parties have dissolved their ties, they have been living separately and Appellant No. 1 is not deriving maintenance from her first husband. Therefore, barring the absence of a legal decree, Appellant No. 1 is de facto separated from her first husband and is not deriving any rights and entitlements as a consequence of that marriage.
18. In the opinion of this Court, when the social justice objective of maintenance u/s. 125CrPC is considered against the particular facts and circumstances of this case, we cannot, in good conscience, deny maintenance to Appellant No. 1. It is settled law that social welfare provisions must be subjected to an expansive and beneficial construction and this understanding has been extended to maintenance since Ramesh Chander (supra). An alternate interpretation would not only explicitly defeat the purpose of the provision by permitting vagrancy and destitution, but would also give legal sanction to the actions of the Respondent in knowingly entering into a marriage with Appellant No.1, availing its privileges but escaping its consequent duties and obligations. The only conceivable mischief that could arise in permitting a beneficial interpretation is that the Appellant No.1 could claim dual maintenance–however, that is not the case under the present facts. We are aware that this Court has previously denied maintenance in cases of subsisting marriages (See Yamunabai (supra) and Bakulabai (supra)). However, a plea of separation from the first marriage was not made in those cases and hence, they are factually distinguishable. It must be borne in mind that the right to maintenance u/s. 125 CrPC is not a benefit received by a wife but rather a legal and moral duty owed by the husband.

N.Usha Rani and Anr Vs Moodudula Srinivas on 30 Jan 2025

Citations: [2025 INSC 129]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/56187356/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/67a987a7c254af19d96c5a16

Index of Maintenance Judgements is here.

Madan Kumar Satpathy Vs Priyadarshini Pati on 07 Feb 2025

Posted on February 15 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Orissa HC reduced the maintenance amount granted by a Trial Court.

From Para 4,

4. Law never appreciates those wives, who remain idle only to saddle the liability of paying maintenance on the husband by not working or not trying to work despite having proper and high qualification. It is found in this case that the OP-wife had earlier worked in some media houses and she has got definite prospect to work and earn her livelihood. The intention and objective of legislature in enacting Section 125 of CrPC is to provide succor to those wives, who are unable to maintain themselves and have no sufficient income for their sustenance. The social objective behind the provision for grant of maintenance, if considered on the admitted facts as discussed in this case, it would go to disclose the wife’s need and requirement to be balanced not only with the income and liability of the husband, but also has to be considered on the backdrop of the education and prospect of the wife to earn.

Madan Kumar Satpathy Vs Priyadarshini Pati on 07 Feb 2025

Index of maintenance judgment u/s 144 BNSS here.

BNSS Sec 144 – Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents

Posted on June 8, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

144. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents:-
(1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain—
(a) his wife, unable to maintain herself; or
(b) his legitimate or illegitimate child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself; or
(c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself; or
(d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself,
a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate as such Magistrate thinks fit and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct:
Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a female child referred to in clause (b) to make such allowance, until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband of such female child, if married, is not possessed of sufficient means:
Provided further that the Magistrate may, during the pendency of the proceeding regarding monthly allowance for the maintenance under this sub-section, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the interim maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, and the expenses of such proceeding which the Magistrate considers reasonable, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct:
Provided also that an application for the monthly allowance for the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding under the second proviso shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of the service of notice of the application to such person.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this Chapter, “wife” includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.
(2) Any such allowance for the maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be.
(3) If any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person, for the whole or any part of each month’s allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be, remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made:
Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under this section unless application be made to the Court to levy such amount within a period of one year from the date on which it became due:
Provided further that if such person offers to maintain his wife on condition of her living with him, and she refuses to live with him, such Magistrate may consider any grounds of refusal stated by her, and may make an order under this section notwithstanding such offer, if he is satisfied that there is just ground for so doing.
Explanation.—If a husband has contracted marriage with another woman or keeps a mistress, it shall be considered to be just ground for his wife’s refusal to live with him.
(4) No wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent.
(5) On proof that any wife in whose favour an order has been made under this section is living in adultery, or that without sufficient reason she refuses to live with her husband, or that they are living separately by mutual consent, the Magistrate shall cancel the order.

Note:
Major difference between this section and Sec 125 CrPC is that, All traces of the word ‘minor‘ including the definition given for this word under Explanation of Sec 125(1) CrPC are removed in BNSS Sec 144 leading to the consequence that, now a major child also can claim maintenance, if he/she/it is unable to maintain themselves.

BNSS Sec 145 is here.

Entire Sanhita available here.

Maintenance Judgments under Section 125 CrPC [Section 144 BNSS] are here.

K Sreekanth Naik Vs P Nalini and Anr on 25 Apr 2024

Posted on May 3, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court held that an Order for Maintenance passed without adhering to the guidelines issued by Apex Court in Rajnesh Vs Neha is liable to be set aside.

From Para 5,

5. During the hearing, it is brought to the notice of the Court that both parties have not complied with the directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court enunciated in the judgment of Rajnesh V. Neha & Anr.,1 concerning the filing of affidavits disclosing the assets and liabilities. Considering the submissions made, I have gone through the observations in Rajnesh V. Neha (cited supra) case. The said judgment has brought revolutionary change in the procedure to be followed by the Courts in dealing with the applications filed under Chapter IX of the Cr.P.C. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has issued comprehensive procedural and normative directions streamlining the maintenance laws, inter alia, directing that the parties in a maintenance application have to file affidavits of disclosure of their assets and liabilities, which must be considered by Courts while deciding the application. It is also held that, in case of a dispute on the declaration made in the affidavits of disclosure, the aggrieved person can seek leave of the Court to serve interrogatories on the opposite side and seek production of relevant documents as provided under Order 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and in case a false statement or misrepresentation is made, the Court can initiate proceedings under section 340 of the Cr.P.C., or for Contempt of Court.

From Paras 7-14,

7. The aforesaid Judgment in the case of Rajnesh (cited supra) has been recently reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Aditi alias Mithi V. Jitesh Sharma 2 and expressing anguish over noncompliance/ improper compliance of the directions laid down in case of Rajnesh (supra) and directed re-circulation of the judgment for compliance thereof.
8. It is acknowledged that both parties have failed to submit the affidavits disclosing their assets and liabilities. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has relied on the decision of High Court of Patna in between Gitanjali Devi @ Gitanjali Kumari V. State of Bihar and another3, wherein, it is observed that the impugned order of granting maintenance amount is liable to be set aside for the reason that it has not followed the procedure prescribed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
9. By following the principles laid down in the Aditi alias Mithi’s case cited supra, the High Court of Madras in Balram Dixit V. Smt. Kiran Dixit and another (Criminal Revision No.1255 of 2023, dated 17.01.2024) also set aside the maintenance awarded by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court,Gwalior and further directed the both parties to submit fresh affidavits of disclosure of assets and liabilities with complete particulars in compliance with the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down in the case of Rajnesh’s case cited supra.
10. Learned counsels representing both sides submit that because of lack of proper instructions, both parties could not comply with the directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court and at present, they are ready to comply with the observations made in the judgments referred to supra, by filing the affidavits and both parties submits that the Respondent-husband is paying interim maintenance amount @ Rs.8,000/- per month vide orders dated 26.09.2019 in Crl.M.P.No.39 of 2019 in F.C.O.P.No.183 of 2018 and he is ready to pay such maintenance amount during the pendency of FCOPs and after its restoration.
11. In view of the same, this Court refrains from delving into the merits of the case at this juncture, as the impugned order passed in F.C.O.P.No.183 of 2018 is liable to be set aside for the reason that it has not followed the procedures prescribed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
12. The impugned order passed in F.C.O.P.No.183 of 2018, is accordingly, set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned Judge, Family Court – cum – VII Additional District Judge, Ananthapuramu for fresh consideration and by following the procedures which are laid down in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
13. This Court further directs the both parties to submit affidavits disclosing their assets and liabilities, giving complete particulars, in accordance with the directives of the Hon’ble Apex Court as laid down in the case of Rajnesh (supra) before the Family Court. The Family Court must ensure strict adherence to these guidelines. If any of the affidavits are found to be lacking in necessary particulars, the learned Judge shall direct to produce the relevant information from the respective party.
14. The Family Court shall dispose of the F.C.O.P.No.183 of 2018 afresh after giving reasonable opportunity to both parties to let in further evidence, if any. In the meantime, the Respondent-husband is directed to pay maintenance amount of Rs.8,000/- per month to the Petitioner-wife till the disposal of the FCOP. Both parties are directed to bear their own costs.

K Sreekanth Naik Vs P Nalini and Anr on 25 Apr 2024

Disclaimer: This is a case that I handled myself for the husband. This is my first reportable judgment.

Citations: [2024 Latest Caselaw 3581 AP]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/7473550/

https://mynation.net/docs/1098-2023/

https://latestlaws.com/judgements/andhra-high-court/2024/april/2024-latest-caselaw-3581-ap

Index of Maintenance cases under section 125 CrPC is here.

Maintenance Judgments under Section 125 CrPC [Section 144 BNSS]

Posted on May 26, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Listed below are few judgments which deal with maintenance for knifes under Section 125 of CrPC [now Section 144 BNSS]. Some are judgments of various courts where there are modifications done to the interim maintenance granted to Knife. The reason for this listing is to initiate Perjury proceedings against the Knife, as and when applicable. Some helpful judgements are here.

In some recent judgments of High Courts, it is being held that capable to earn is NOT equated to earning currently. Banking on this aspect only is not helpful and can be suicidal if this is the only argument victim-husband has.

Supreme Court

Smt. Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav A Vs Ranantrao Shivram Adhav And … on 27 January, 1988 (When the marriage is a complete nullity in the eye of law and wife is not entitled to the benefit of Section 125 of the CrPC)
Smt. Jasbir Kaur Sehgal Vs The District Judge Dehradun & Ors on 27 August, 1997 (Maintenance granted from Date of Application from Date of Order)
Shahada Khatoon and Ors Vs Amjad Ali and Ors on 7 Apr 1999 (Under 125(3) CrPC, 1-year time limit is for issuance of warrant for arrest)
Ruchi Agarwal Vs Amit Kumar Agrawal and Ors on 5 Nov 2004 [Once MCD done with no future claims, maintenance cannot be claimed later]
Chaturbhuj Vs Sita Bai on 27 November, 2007 [who is eligible to claim maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and under what conditions]
Bhushan Kumar Meen vs Mansi Meen @ Harpreet Kaur on 28 April, 2009 (Reduced from 10K to 5K)
Poongadi And Anr vs Thangavel on 27 September, 2013 (Total arrears to be paid from date of filing of MC application; arrest can happen for a month maximum for each violation of monthly maintenance)
Sunita Kachwaha and Ors Vs Anil Kuchwaha on 28 Oct 2014 [Wife must positively aver and prove that she is unable to maintain herself]
Rajnesh Pal Naidu Vs Neha Naidu Joshi and Anr on 04 Nov 2020 [Guidelines issued to file Income, Asset and LIability affidavits before passing any Interim or Final Maintenance Orders ]
Aditi Sharma Vs Jitesh Sharma on 06 Nov 2023 [Reiterated/re-circulated Rajnesh Vs Neha to all High Courts]
N.Usha Rani and Anr Vs Moodudula Srinivas on 30 Jan 2025 [Second husband can be made liable to pay maintenance to Wife, even if she didn’t take divorce from her first husband]

Allahabad High Court

Kiran Dhar Vs Alok Berman on 14 May, 2014 (No Domestic relationship as First Wife alive)
Ismile @ Shama Vs State Of U.P. & Others on 22 September, 2016 (Knife able to maintain herself)
Vipin Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 25 Feb 2022 (relying on Hazi, held issue of arrest warrants in not correct law in case of non payment of maintenance)
Parul Tyagi Vs Gaurav Tyagi on 04 Aug 2023 [Guidelines passed in elaboration of Rajnesh Pal Naidu Vs Neha Naidu Joshi and Anr on 04 Nov 2020 and Aditi Sharma Vs Jitesh Sharma on 06 Nov 2023]
Dr. Virender Kumar Vs State of UP and Anr on 16 Oct 2024 [Once there is categorical allegation of adultery against the wife (attracting Section 125(4) Cr.P.C.), then the court concerned dealing with the matter under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has to decide the issue of adultery and even interim maintenance can be awarded only after recording a finding on that issue]

Andhra Pradesh High Court

Jangam Srinivasa Rao Vs Jaagam Rajeshwari and Anr on 13 Mar 1989 [Can claim maintenance only up to 12 months; Bad judgment as such restriction goes against execution proceedings]
Moodududla Srinivas Vs Smt .N.Usha Rani on 13 April, 2017
Gollamudi Ramesh Vs Modukuri Nagamani and Anr on 30 Aug 2017 [Evidence must not be taken via Affidavit as per Sec 126(2) CrPC]
Borugadda Rama Devi and Ors Vs Borugadda Ravi Kumar and Anr on 26 Dec 2018 [No maintenance for Deserter wife 144(4) BNSS/125(4) CrPC]
Chinta Vamshi Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 16 Oct 2023 [Follow Rajnesh Vs Neha]
Gurram Sitaramaiah Vs Gurram Siva Parvathi and Ors on 08 Jan 2024 [Relied on Shahada Khatoon and Poongadi judgments; Under 125(3) CrPC, 1-year time limit is for issuance of warrant for arrest; arrest can happen for a month maximum for each violation of monthly maintenance]

Trial Courts:

Byru Rajeswari Vs Byru Suresh Babu on 30 Apr 2018 (Knife failed to prove her allegations)
Gadesula Radhika Vs Gadesula Rajesh on 22 Jan 2019 (Knife voluntarily left the company of husband)
Palagani Samrajyam and Anr Vs Palagani Nagaraju on 30 Dec 2019 (Knife voluntarily left the company of husband)
K Sreekanth Naik Vs P Nalini and Anr on 25 Apr 2024 [Follow Rajnesh Vs Neha]

Bombay High Court

Sanjay Sudhakar Bhosale Vs Khristina on 8 April, 2008 (Cruelty not proved)
Sachin Vs Sau. Sushma on 6 May, 2014 (Follow Section 421 of the Cr.P.C. first before arrest)
Bhagwant Narnawre Vs Radhika Narnawre on 05 Apr 2019 (Wife is not a creditor)

Calcutta High Court

Saikat Das Vs State of West Bengal and Anr on 27 Mar 2025 [No maintenance for Deserter wife 144(4) BNSS/125(4) CrPC]

Chhattisgarh High Court

Rishikesh Singh Vs Kiran Gautam on 05 Sep 2014 (MCD u/s 13B of HMA does not entitle wife maintenance u/s 125 CrPC)

Delhi High Court Judgments

Sabina Sahdev and Ors Vs Vidur Sahdev on 9 Jul 2018 [no pre-condition can be laid before receiving Appeal/Revision such as deposit maintenance amount]
Rangesh Srinivasan Vs Madhulika Bawa on 07 Jun 2023 [Stay on Interim Maintenance Order without any pre-condition; relied on Sabina Sahdev and Ors Vs Vidur Sahdev on 9 Jul 2018]
Zahir Obdullah and Anr Vs Omar Abdullah on 31 Aug 2023 [Interim enhanced to 1.5 lakhs from 75,000; despite the law providing, Court granted maintenance to major children!]
Sachin Kumar Daksh Vs Mamta Gola and Anr on 16 Feb 2024 [Allowed Revised Income affidavit as per Rajnesh Vs Neha judgement though held that earlier affidavit is not obliterated]
Megha Khetrapal Vs Rajat Kapoor on 19 Mar 2025 [No Interim Maintenance from previously working wife]

Trial Courts:

Neeraj Aggarwal Vs Veeka Aggarwal on September 19, 2007 (Educated and Working Wife (even after marriage) not entitled for maintenance)

Gauhathi High Court

Hazi Abdul Khaleque Vs Mustt. Samsun Nehar on 20 Aug 1990 (No arrest can be made for non-payment of maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C.)

Gujarat High Court

Hemlataben Maheshbhai Chauhan Vs State of Gujarat on 21 October, 2010 (denied interim maintenance to Knife as she is already getting maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC)
Varshaben Himantlal Vejani Vs State of Gujarat on 15 Jul 2016 (Spouses living separately with mutual consent so No maintenance can be allowed; Agreements against Public Policy are void)
Ashokbhai Devsingbhai Chauhan Vs Taraben Ashokbhai Chauhan on 11 Nov 2019 (Wife is not a creditor)

Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court

Showkat Aziz Zargar Vs Nabeel Showkat and Anr on 02 Sep 2022 (No maintenance to children once they attain majority, except one exception)

Jharkhand High Court

Ramdhani Sah Vs The State of Jharkhand on 22 June, 2016 (No arrest without following sec 421 Cr.P.C.)

Karnataka High Court

K.R.Arun vs M.Latha on 22 September, 2014 (Interim is reduced in S24 HMA, to Rs.2000/- from Rs.3000/-, until assets information is received in court)
Dr. Deepak K S Vs Dr. Sowmya Sharath on 23 March, 2018
Darshanik M M Vs Poornima A on 04 Dec 2023 [Not followed Guidelines passed in Rajnesh Pal Naidu Vs Neha Naidu Joshi and Anr on 04 Nov 2020 ]
Y.G. Rajesh Vs M Ramya and Anr on 08 Feb 2024 [Standard deduction not to be considered as salary]
K.L Rangaswamy Vs Sharadha. D on 20 Mar 2024 [Unclean hands; Liable for perjury; Interim Maintenance denial Order upheld]

Kerala High Court

Rajesh R. Nair Vs Meera Babu on 5 Mar 2013 (Spouses living separately with mutual consent; No maintenance can be allowed)
Rijas MT Vs Hafseena M on 15 Nov 2023 [No direct arrest warrant may be issued in case of failure to make maintenance payments]
Abhilash.M.V Vs Soumya Soman on 10 Nov 2023 [Husband not given chance to file objections]
Paul George Vs Emarin Paul on 12 Mar 2025 [No maintenance to a deserting wife]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Mamta Jaiswal vs Rajesh Jaiswal on 24 March, 2000 (Educated and Working Wife (even after marriage) not entitled for maintenance)
Nirman Sagar Vs Monika Sagar Chaudhari and Anr on 01 Apr 2022 [No territorial jurisdiction]
Balram Dixit Vs Kiran Dixit and Anr on 17 Jan 2024 [Follow Rajnesh Vs Neha]
Shrikrishna Vs Sunita Bai on 02 May 2024 [Woman whose first marriage is subsisting, is not entitled to maintenance under section 125 CrPC]
Shikha Vs Avaneesh Mahodaya on 10 Sep 2024 [well educated lady who also has her own source of income]

Madras High Court

M.Chinna Karuppasamy Vs Kanimozhi on 16 Jul 2015 [No maintenance to adulterer wife]
P Amutha Vs Gunsekaran on 23 Dec 2022 (Wife is not a creditor)

Orissa High Court

Madan Kumar Satpathy Vs Priyadarshini Pati on 07 Feb 2025 [Maintenance reduced to a well-educated wife]

Patna High Court

Laljee Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar on 16 September, 2011 (Importance of Section 421 Cr.P.C., arrest warrant in 125(3) Cr.P.C. cases)
Gitanjali Devi Vs State of Bihar and Anr on 02 Dec 2023 [Follow Rajnesh Vs Neha]

Punjab and Haryana High Court

Asha Rani Vs Ranjit Singh on 11 Dec 2024 [No maintenance for Educated wife]

Telangana High Court

Ekula Sujatha Vs Ekula Rajender and Anr on 1 Jul 2024 [No maintenance for Deserter wife]

Uttarakhand High Court

Anshu Gupta Vs Adwait Anand on 09 Aug 2023 [Mother liable to pay maintenance to minor child]

Index of all Maintenance judgments is here.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: BNSS Sec 144 – Order for maintenance of wives children and parents

Asha Rani Vs Ranjit Singh on 11 Dec 2024

Sunita Kachwaha and Ors Vs Anil Kuchwaha on 28 Oct 2014

Paul George Vs Emarin Paul on 12 Mar 2025

N.Usha Rani and Anr Vs Moodudula Srinivas on 30 Jan 2025

Madan Kumar Satpathy Vs Priyadarshini Pati on 07 Feb 2025

BNSS Sec 144 – Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents

K Sreekanth Naik Vs P Nalini and Anr on 25 Apr 2024

Maintenance Judgments under Section 125 CrPC [Section 144 BNSS]