Vinod Kumar Vs Seema Devi and Anr on 16 Mar 2026 – Judgement Summary

Posted on April 4 by Suprajaa Rajan

In Vinod Kumar Vs Seema Devi and Anr, the Delhi High Court examined whether the maintenance awarded by the Family Court under Section 125 CrPC (now Section 144 BNSS) required interference.

The petitioner (husband) challenged the maintenance granted to his wife and daughter, arguing that:

The wife lived separately without justification
She had rental income
His own income was wrongly assessed

However, the Court found that the wife had consistently alleged cruelty, which justified her separate residence. Moreover, the Court emphasized that an able-bodied husband cannot evade maintenance liability by understating income or taking voluntary retirement.

After analysing income, evidence, and legal principles, the Court upheld the Family Court’s order and dismissed the revision petition.

“9. It is well settled that the object of granting maintenance is to prevent vagrancy by compelling those who can provide support to those who are unable to support themselves and who have a moral claim to support.”

“10. Section 125 of the CrPC elucidates conditions under which a wife may be deemed ineligible for maintenance. These conditions include instances where the wife is engaged in adulterous activities, where she, without any justifiable cause, refuse to cohabit with her husband, or where both parties have agreed to live apart through mutual consent. These provisions delineate clear legal parameters that govern the entitlement or disentitlement of maintenance to ensure that the support is granted only under circumstances that warrant such financial assistance.”

“13. Merely because Respondent No.1 remained in possession of the matrimonial house, the same does not signify that the petitioner did not neglect to maintain the respondents. Even if the contention of the petitioner is taken as correct, the case of the respondents is not helmed on Respondent No.1 leaving the company of the petitioner due to neglect, so as to disentitle her from grant of maintenance. Rather, Respondent No.1 has made categorical allegations of cruelty, which is sufficient to satisfy the threshold of balance of probabilities.”
“18. It appears to be implausible that the petitioner would have taken retirement from his stable well-paying job without securing any other mode of income. As it is a normal tendency of the parties to not disclose their true income in matrimonial disputes, the Courts are permitted to make some guess work and arrive at a figure that a party may reasonably be earning.”
“19. The petitioner is a well- bodied man capable of earning, he cannot shirk his sacrosanct duty to financially support his wife and children by claiming that he has no income after retirement apart from his pension. The petitioner is thus obliged to earn and maintain his family, and the purported lower MSP prices for his land would thus not help his case.”

Decision

The Delhi High Court held that:

The maintenance awarded by the Family Court was justified and reasonable
The wife’s allegations of cruelty justified her separate residence
The husband’s claim of low income was not credible

Accordingly:

The Court refused to interfere with the maintenance order
The revision petition was dismissed
Maintenance (₹10,000 per month each after majority, with 10% increase every two years) was upheld

Vinod Kumar Vs Seema Devi and Anr on 16 Mar 2026

Citation :

Other Sources :

Index of Maintenance Judgements under Sec 125 CrPC is here.

Related Legal Concepts

Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC (Section 144 BNSS)
Cruelty as Ground for Separate Residence
Assessment of Income in Maintenance Cases
Doctrine of Social Justice in Family Law
Adverse Inference for Non-Disclosure of Income

Key Contributor :
Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com., LL.B., LL.M.
+91-9606345150

Anju Garg and Anr Vs Deepak Kumar Garg on 28 Sep 2022 – Judgement Summary

Posted on April 4 by Suprajaa Rajan

In Anju Garg and Anr Vs Deepak Kumar Garg, the Supreme Court of India examined whether a wife is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC (now Section 144 BNSS) despite adverse findings by lower courts.

The appellants (wife and son) challenged the denial of maintenance to the wife by the Family Court and the High Court. The Court observed that the husband not only neglected his duty but also made baseless allegations regarding the wife’s character, which justified her living separately.

Moreover, the Court emphasised that maintenance provisions serve a social justice function. Therefore, once neglect and inability to maintain oneself are established, courts must grant relief.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the erroneous findings of lower courts and granted maintenance to the wife.

“9. Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish and financial suffering of a woman who is required to leave the matrimonial home, so that some suitable arrangements could be made to enable her to sustain herself and the children.”
“10. It is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and to the minor children. The husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is an able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on the legally permissible grounds mentioned in the statute.”
“11. She had clearly stated as to how she was harassed and subjected to cruelty by the respondent, which had constrained her to leave the matrimonial home along with her children, and as to how the respondent had failed and neglected to maintain her and her children. She had also proved by producing the documentary evidence that her father had paid money to the respondent from time to time to help the respondent for his business. Even if the allegations of demand of dowry by the respondent were not believed, there was enough evidence to believe that money was being paid to the respondent by the father of the appellant-wife, which substantiated her allegation that the respondent was demanding money from her father and was subjecting her to harassment.”
“13. The respondent being an able- bodied, he is obliged to earn by legitimate means and maintain his wife and the minor child. Having regard to the evidence of the appellant-wife before the Family Court, and having regard to the other evidence on record, the Court has no hesitation in holding that though the respondent had sufficient source of income and was able-bodied, had failed and neglected to maintain the appellants.”

Decision

The Supreme Court of India allowed the appeal and held that the wife was entitled to maintenance.

Accordingly:

The Court awarded ₹10,000 per month as maintenance to the wife.
This amount was in addition to ₹6,000 per month already granted to the son.
The maintenance was made payable from the date of filing of the petition.
The Court also directed the husband to clear arrears within 8 weeks.

Thus, the Court corrected the perverse findings of the Family Court and High Court and reinforced the protective intent of maintenance law.

Anju Garg and Anr Vs Deepak Kumar Garg on 28 Sep 2022

Citation :

Other Sources :

Index of Maintenance Judgements under Sec 125 CrPC is here.

Related Legal Concepts

Explore related stages and concepts in criminal procedure:

Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC (Section 144 BNSS)
Social Justice Jurisprudence in Family Law
Cruelty as Ground for Separate Residence
Burden of Proof in Maintenance Cases
Obligation of Able-Bodied Husband to Maintain Wife

Key Contributor :

Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com., LL.B., LL.M.

+91-9606345150

Kamaljeet Kaur and Anr Vs Harbhajan Singh and Anr on 26 Aug 2022

Posted on March 7 by Suprajaa Rajan

The High Court held that initiation of proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. was justified where the court found possible false statements regarding employment in a maintenance petition. The Court observed that such proceedings aim to protect the sanctity of judicial processes.

The Court ruled that the truth of the allegations must emerge during the enquiry. It dismissed the appeal and allowed the perjury proceedings to continue.

The following extracts form the basis of the Court’s reasoning.

“Admittedly, the dispute is between appellant No.1 and respondent No.1, who are husband and wife. Due to the matrimonial discord, appellant No.1 left the matrimonial home on 25.09.2017 and both of them started living separately.”

“A perusal of the provisions of Section 340 Cr.P.C. makes it evident that if the Court is of the opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in Clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 195… such Court after such preliminary enquiry is competent to order the proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C.”

“Initiation of the proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. is to carry out a thorough enquiry by affording opportunity to both the sides for establishing the truthfulness in the allegations.”

“Initiation of the proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. in itself cannot be said to be punitive. Rather the same is expedient in the interest of justice for maintaining the sanctity of the judicial proceedings.”

“After hearing the counsel for the appellants and perusing the record… this Court is of the opinion that the impugned complaint and impugned orders suffer from no illegality.”

Decision

The High Court dismissed the appeal.

It upheld the Family Court’s decision to initiate proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. The Court held that such enquiry was necessary to determine the truth of the alleged false statements regarding employment.

However, the Court clarified that its observations would not influence the trial court during further proceedings.

Kamaljeet Kaur Vs Harbhajan Singh on 26 Aug 2022

Index of Perjury Judgements is here.

Key Contributor :

Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com., LL.B., LL.M.

+91-9606345150

Amit Bajpai Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 15 Dec 2023

Posted on March 4 by Suprajaa Rajan

The Allahabad High Court held that when a party files an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. alleging false affidavit, the Family Court must decide that application before proceeding with the maintenance case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Court ruled that failure to do so vitiates the maintenance order if it relies on the disputed affidavit. The High Court set aside the maintenance order and directed the Family Court to first decide the perjury application within a fixed time frame.

“It is further submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the learned Family Court without deciding the application filed by the revisionist under Section 340 Cr.P.C. has proceeded with the case and decided the application filed by opposite party no.2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and maintenance has been awarded on relying the false affidavit filed by opposite party no.2.”

“Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State do not dispute the aforesaid legal position.”

“In view of above the criminal revision is allowed. The judgement and order dated 14.06.2023 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.-1, Kanpur Nagar in Case No.- 502 of 2020 is set aside.”

“Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.-1/court concerned is directed to decide the application filed by revisionist under Section 340 Cr.P.C. which was registered as Misc. Application No. 473 of 2022 within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, and thereafter the application filed by opposite party no.2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. expeditiously, without granting undue adjournments to either of the parties unless there is any legal impediments.”

Decision

The High Court allowed the criminal revision.

It set aside the maintenance order.
It directed the Family Court to first decide the Section 340 Cr.P.C. application.
It ordered that the maintenance case proceed only thereafter.

Amit Bajpai Vs State of UP on 15 Dec 2023

Citation: [2023:AHC:238266]

Other Sources :

Index of Perjury Judgements is here.

Key Contributor :

Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com.,LL.B.,LL.M.

+91-9606345150

Mohammed Azeem Vs Sabeeha & Ors on 22 Sep 2025

Posted on February 18 by ShadesOfKnife

The High Court of Karnataka held that a Family Court has no jurisdiction to issue a Look Out Circular (LOC) for recovery of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

The Court ruled that enforcement of maintenance orders must strictly follow the mechanism provided under Section 125(3) CrPC read with Section 421 CrPC. It permits recovery through attachment and sale of property, and not by issuance of a Look Out Circular.

The Court further observed that continuing an LOC despite a judicial stay order amounts to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Below are the crucial paragraphs that formed the foundation of the Court’s decision:

Para 2
“It is submitted that Section 125(3) provides that in enforcement of the maintenance order Court may issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for fines as prescribed under Section 421 of Cr.P.C. Section 421 provides that a warrant for levy of fine by attachment of sale of immovable property.”
“Proviso to Section 421 provides that no such warrant shall be executed by arrest or detention in prison of the offender. The Family Court has no power to issue the look out circular in the process of executing the order of maintenance.”
“The Family Court has no power to issue the look out circular in the process of executing an order that is passed under Section 125 of CrPC.”
“Maintenance orders passed under Section 125 of CrPC is a civil obligation enforced through judicial orders. If party defaults the remedy is to seek execution of the order i.e., attachment of property, warrant of arrest and civil imprisonment.”
“Look out circulars are meant to prevent the accused/offenders from evading criminal process. The LOC cannot be issued for recovering the dues of maintenance.”
Para 6
“Further, continuing the LOC despite the order passed by the Court is illegal and amounts to contempt of Court and it also amounts to violation of rights guaranteed under article 21 of the Constitution of India.”

Mohammed Azeem Vs Saheeba and Ors

Citation :

Other Sources :

Index of Judgments about Look Out Circular notices is here.

Key Contributor :

Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com., LL.B., LL.M.,

+91-9606345150

Vivek Kumar Singh Vs Pallawi Kumari on 11 Mar 2025

Posted on February 11 by ShadesOfKnife

A single-judge Bench of the Patna High Court upheld an order granting maintenance to the wife under Section 125 CrPC. The husband challenged the order in revision. He argued that the wife had deserted him.

The Court held that a plea of desertion cannot defeat a maintenance claim by itself. The husband must first obtain a declaration from a competent matrimonial court. Until then, the wife remains entitled to claim maintenance.

The following paragraphs form the foundation of the Court’s reasoning:

“7. But unless the petitioner is able to get a declaration in his favour in the Matrimonial Case No. 25 of 2020 filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the opposite party no. 2 fails to justify her desertion, any challenge to the maintenance order is not sustainable.”
“7. It also transpires that the maintenance amount awarded to the opposite party no. 2 is about 25 percent of the net salary of the petitioner which is in tune with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision of Rajnesh Vs. Neha (2021).”

VivekKumarSinghVsPallawiKumari_11MAR2025_PatnaHC

Citation :

Other Sources :

Index of Maintenance judgements under Sec 125 CrPC is here.

Key Contributor :

Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com., LL.B, LL.M

Contact : +91-9606345150

Alagarsamy Vs Mangalasundari and Anr on 20 Nov 2025

Posted on January 3 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Madras High Court at Madurai Bench held as follows,

From Para 16,

16. However, the learned Magistrate’s order is devoid of any specific reference to the section under which the warrant was issued. The expression “distress warrant” under Section 125(3) and “distraint warrant” under Section 128 have distinct connotations. The former is punitive, providing for imprisonment up to one month, per month of default, while the latter is civil-enforcement-oriented, meant to attach property to recover arrears. The confusion between the two renders the order susceptible to ambiguity.

From Para 20,

20. In the instant case, though the petitioner’s persistent default is established, the record does not show that the learned Magistrate considered or issued a bailable warrant before resorting to NBW. The impugned order also lacks any recorded satisfaction as to why the petitioner’s appearance could not be secured otherwise. That apart, the respondent wife herein had made the application for arrears of maintenance for a period of 22 months, which obviously would throw light on the fact that, the application has not been filed within a period of one year and hence, in an application filed beyond a period of one year, the learned Judicial Magistrate ought to have dealt with as mandated under Section 128 of Cr.P.C., 1973, and should have issued a distraint warrant and not a distress warrant.

From Para 22,

22. Hence, while the issuance of NBW without recording reasons is procedurally defective, the learned Magistrate’s power to enforce maintenance cannot be doubted. The proper course would have been to issue a bailable warrant first, or to issue a distraint warrant under Section 128 Cr.P.C., 1973, for attachment of property, before considering arrest.

From Para 28,

28. This case underscores the need for the learned Trial Courts to distinctly record under which provision warrants are issued, whether punitive under Section 125(3) or coercive under Section 128, and to follow the statutory sequence under Section 87 Cr.P.C., 1973, before resorting to non-bailable warrants.

Alagarsamy Vs Mangalasundari and Anr on 20 Nov 2025

Citations:

Other Sources:

Index of Maintenance judgments u/s 144 Cr.P.C. is here.

Arun R.Naik Vs Shwetha Arun Naik and Anr on 17 May 2021

Posted on October 6, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Kerala High Court directed to set aside the enhancement of Maintenance amount at 10% annually.

From Para 3,

3. In the M.C, the 1st petitioner had adduced oral evidence as PW1 and marked Exts.A1 to A10 as documentary evidence. On the respondent’s side, oral evidence was adduced by him as RW1 and Exts.B1 to B11 were marked as documentary evidence. The Family Court has appreciated the above evidence and allowed the M.C granting monthly maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- to the 1st petitioner and Rs.7,000/- to the 2nd petitioner, from the date of the petition. The Family Court has also directed the respondent to pay a lumpsum of Rs.30,000/- at the beginning of every academic year before June 30th subject to enhancement at the rate of 10% yearly to the 2nd petitioner for her education with effect from the date of the petition.

From Para 16,

16. The Family Court has ordered the monthly maintenance allowance in favour of the 2nd petitioner as Rs.7,000/- and directed the respondent to pay the same and also an additional sum of Rs.30,000/- within June 30th of every academic year subject to 10% increase annually. The said direction undoubtedly is an unjustifiable one and will not sustain for the reason that the monthly maintenance allowance contemplated under Section 125 Cr.P.C will take within it’s sweep all genuine expenses of the child viz. expenses for education, food, shelter, medicine etc. and therefore, a court while fixing it shall take into account all possible and reasonable expenditures of a child. Therefore, if a lumpsum amount is fixed by the Family Court as payable, undoubtedly it would take care of all reasonable expenditures of the child. Moreover, the direction to pay Rs.30,000/- annually to the 2nd petitioner, in every academic year in addition to a lumpsum amount ordered as payable towards monthly maintenance allowance, is devoid of any basis.

From Para 17,

17. The Family Court has fixed the monthly maintenance allowance payable to the 2nd petitioner as Rs.7,000/- after duly considering the educational expenses also. Therefore the direction to pay Rs.30,000/- as additional sum only to meet the educational expenses is devoid of merits and liable to be set aside.

Finally,

In the result, both revisions are allowed in part. The monthly maintenance allowance stands ordered in favour of the 1st petitioner by the impugned order is modified and reduced to Rs.7,000/- and that to the 2nd petitioner is modified and enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. The direction to pay Rs.30,000/- before 30th June of every academic year subject to 10% enhancement annually is set aside.

Arun R.Naik Vs Shwetha Arun Naik and Anr on 17 May 2021

Index of Maintenance Judgments under Sec 144 BNSS is here.

Gollamudi Ramesh Vs Modukuri Nagamani and Anr on 30 Aug 2017

Posted on June 5, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A single Judge of AP High Court (Erstwhile Combined High Court for TS and AP) held that Evidence must not be taken via Affidavit as per Sec 126(2) CrPC in a Sec 125 CrPC case.

From Para 6,

6. Undoubtedly the proceedings before the court below are under section 125 Cr.P.C., though it is registered as FCOP the petition is only under section 125 Cr.P.C., and the procedure followed by the Judge is only under section 126 Cr.P.C. clause [2] the Court shall take evidence in the presence of the person against whom an order for payment of maintenance is proposed to be made, or, when his personal attendance is dispensed with in the presence of his pleader, and shall be recorded in the manner prescribed for summons-cases; therefore, taking advantage of 126 [2] of Cr.P.C., the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the affidavit of the respondent cannot be permitted to be taken as evidence, like summons cases, this question no more res integra. In V.D. Solomon’s case, supra-1, the learned single Judge after elaborately dealing with section 10 of the Family Courts Act and other provisions held that in maintenance cases the proceedings under section 125 Cr.P.C., the Court has to record the evidence as contemplated under section 126 [2] Cr.P.C., and affidavits cannot be received. In view of the law declared by this Court the procedure adopted by the Judge, Additional Family Court is irregular and contrary to law. This Court in exercise of the powers conferred under section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., can set aside the same. Accordingly, the order passed by the court below is set aside.

Gollamudi Ramesh Vs Modukuri Nagamani and Anr on 30 Aug 2017

Citations:

Other Sources:

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5e96d23d4653d053645840b9

https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?CaseId=407102273000&Title=GOLLAMUDI-RAMESH-Vs.-MODUKURI-NAGAMANI—MODKURI-GETHA-NAGAMANI

Index of Maintenance Judges is here.

Saikat Das Vs State of West Bengal and Anr on 27 Mar 2025

Posted on April 18, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A single bench judge of Calcutta High Court denied maintenance to deserter wife.

From Para 24,

24. During the cross-examination of the respondent wife in the Domestic Violence case, the respondent wife has stated that “On 31st January, 2015, I left matrimonial home and came to my parental home”. In the application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the respondent wife made out a case that on 3rd February, 2015, her husband and her in-laws have brutally tortured upon her. The Learned Magistrate as well as the Learned Appellate Court finds that as per the case of the wife, she left her matrimonial house on 31st January, 2015 and she never came back to her matrimonial home, how the petitioner and his parents cause torture upon the respondent wife.

From Para 29,

29. This Court finds that the respondent wife in the Domestic Violence case made out the case of torture by the petitioner on 3rd February, 2015 and in the application filed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. made out a case by making a bald allegation of torture other than the case made out in an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. In the case of domestic violence, the respondent wife in support of her case had examined her mother as witness. The mother of the respondent wife in her statement has stated that “she came to depose as per direction of her daughter and her daughter asked her what to tell and her affidavit was prepared by her lawyer and she only put her signature”. She also stated that they provided with several things to her daughter on her reception but not on demand and after marriage there was no demand for dowry. The respondent wife cleverly not brings her mother as witness in the case filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

From Para 30,

30. 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.

From Para 36,

36. The affidavit of assets and liabilities filed by the parties, this Court finds that both the parties have not disclosed their affidavit of assets and liabilities correctly and thus one party cannot take the benefit of the wrong committed by the other party when the both the party have committed wrong.

From Para 37, (When there is no neglect, it is wrong to sustain maintenance to minor child)

37. This Court has already held that the respondent wife is living separately since 31st January, 2015 without any sufficient reasons and there is no evidence to show that she was ill-treated by the petitioner, thus the order passed by the Learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Calcutta in Misc Case No. 29 of 2016 dated 6th September, 2024 is set aside with respect to grant of maintenance of Rs. 7,000/- per month for the respondent wife. As regard the maintenance of the minor, this Court has not interfered with.

Saikat Das Vs State of West Bengal and Anr on 27 Mar 2025

Index of Maintenance Judgements is here.

Analysis by Adv Talari Rajeswari

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: CrPC 125 or BNSS 144 – Order for Maintenance of Wives Children and Parents

Vinod Kumar Vs Seema Devi and Anr on 16 Mar 2026 – Judgement Summary

Decision

Related Legal Concepts

Anju Garg and Anr Vs Deepak Kumar Garg on 28 Sep 2022 – Judgement Summary

Decision

Related Legal Concepts

Kamaljeet Kaur and Anr Vs Harbhajan Singh and Anr on 26 Aug 2022

Decision

Amit Bajpai Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 15 Dec 2023

Decision

Mohammed Azeem Vs Sabeeha & Ors on 22 Sep 2025

Vivek Kumar Singh Vs Pallawi Kumari on 11 Mar 2025

Alagarsamy Vs Mangalasundari and Anr on 20 Nov 2025

Arun R.Naik Vs Shwetha Arun Naik and Anr on 17 May 2021

Gollamudi Ramesh Vs Modukuri Nagamani and Anr on 30 Aug 2017

Saikat Das Vs State of West Bengal and Anr on 27 Mar 2025