Relying on Chanmuniya case, Single-judge bench of AP High Court held that, in case of nullity of marriage under Section 11 or 12 of HMA, 125 CrPC cannot be invoked by knife.
Citations : [2020 ALT CRI 2 227], [2020 ALT 4 329]
Other Sources:
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5f4398cd4653d009c1ff7665
https://www.legitquest.com/case/palla-shanthi-kiran-v-the-state-of-ap-and-ors/1C400E
The Lower Family Court dismissal order is here:
Maintenance judgments by Enactment
Maintenance and Alimony Judgments under Hindu Marriage Act 1955 here.
Maintenance Judgments under Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1956 here.
Maintenance Judgments under Section 125 CrPC [Section 144 BNSS] here.
Maintenance Judgments under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 here.
Maintenance for Limited Time Period here.
Maintenance after Mutual Consent Divorce here.
Agreements against Public Policy are Void here.
A SPECIAL FOCUS ON IMPLEMENTATION OF Rajnesh Vs Neha AFFIDAVIT
A 2-judge bench of Supreme Court passed guidelines in Rajnesh Vs Neha on how to handle multiple maintenance litigation here.
A 2-judge bench of Supreme Court recorded the various observations of the Delhi High Court in Parvin Kumar Jain Vs Anju Jain here, where by Delhi High Court flagged the following tendencies of parties in filing their Income Affidavits.
MASTER SITEMAP here.
Maintenance refers to financial support provided by one person to another who is unable to maintain themselves, typically in matrimonial or family relationships. Under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), courts can order a person with sufficient means to provide maintenance to his wife, children, or parents if he neglects or refuses to support them.
The following persons can seek maintenance under the law:
The objective of the provision is to prevent destitution and vagrancy by ensuring financial support for dependents.
To claim maintenance, the applicant generally needs to show:
Courts evaluate these factors based on evidence and circumstances of each case.
Yes. Courts have clarified that mere qualification or ability to earn is not enough to deny maintenance. What matters is whether the person is actually earning enough to maintain a reasonable standard of living comparable to that enjoyed during the marriage.
Courts determine the quantum of maintenance based on several factors, including:
The goal is to ensure the dependent spouse can maintain a dignified standard of living.
Yes. Courts can grant interim maintenance to provide immediate financial support during ongoing proceedings. Applications for interim maintenance are expected to be decided expeditiously, ensuring the claimant is not left without support while the case continues.
Maintenance may be refused if the wife:
These exceptions are provided under Section 125(4) CrPC.
Yes. Under Section 125 CrPC, parents who are unable to maintain themselves have the legal right to claim maintenance from their children. Courts treat this obligation as a moral and legal duty of children toward their parents.
Yes. A divorced wife who has not remarried can claim maintenance if she cannot support herself. Courts have repeatedly recognized that divorce does not extinguish the right to maintenance where financial dependence continues.
Courts increasingly require both parties to file affidavits disclosing income, assets, and liabilities, including bank statements, tax returns, and property details. This ensures fair determination of maintenance and prevents concealment of income.
Maintenance provisions are social welfare measures intended to prevent financial hardship and ensure that dependents such as spouses, children, and parents are not left destitute due to neglect or abandonment.
Yes. With the enactment of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, the provision corresponding to Section 125 CrPC has been incorporated as Section 144 BNSS, while retaining the same core principles governing maintenance claims.
Hon’ble High Court of Madras has, in this judgment, held that no maintenance for knife who is duly employed and having sufficient means and source of income.
On bare perusal of the petition for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the 1st respondent, this Court is able to see that in the petition it is focused that the revision petitioner to be a person of sound financial capacity, besides holding valuable assets. It is obvious to see the petition primly projects the financial capacity of the revision petitioner rather than describing the respondent’s incapacity and inability to maintain her.
Legal tenet
The provision of maintenance provided under section 125 CrPC is neither penal nor compulsory, but is to be decided in the light of the financial capacity of the wife to maintain herself.
From Para 34,
Before parting with the case, this Court expresses its deep concern that though the legislation for maintenance is a valuable and beneficial legislation safeguarding hapless and helpless wife, who is unable to maintain herself, but there are some instances in which as in the case on hand the wife focus her husband as like that of an automated teller machine and the beneficial provisions of law is managed to be utilized as a tool of harassment.
Hon’ble Apex Court has in this judgment denied maintenance to Knife who is errant and left matrimonial home on her own without any justifiable reasons.
Justice BP SINGH held that,
“the respondent had left her matrimonial home on her own and that she was not compelled by the appellant to leave her matrimonial home, nor had he threatened the respondent with dire consequences if she did not leave his house. There was no ground for the respondent to apprehend that if she lived with the appellant her life would be in danger and that she will be subjected to torture or cruelty. In sum and substance she had no justifiable reason to desert the appellant. The fact that the application for grant of maintenance was filed within four days of her leaving her matrimonial home without any effort for reconciliation, was also significant. The learned Magistrate therefore held that the respondent having left her matrimonial home without any justifiable ground was not entitled to the grant of maintenance.”
Citations: [AIR 2003 SUPREME COURT 3174], [2003 AIR SCW 4522], [2004 SCC(CRI) 164], [2003 (5) SLT 170], [(2003) 3 BANKCAS 86], [2003 (6) SCALE 742], [(2003) 7 JT 379 (SC)], [2003 (11) SCC 303], [2003 CRIAPPR(SC) 513], [2003 (9) SRJ 130], [(2003) 11 ALLINDCAS 129 (SC)], [(2004) 2 MARRILJ 488], [(2004) 1 DMC 25], [(2004) 1 BOMCR(CRI) 949], [(2003) 4 ALLCRILR 139], [(2003) 6 SUPREME 415], [(2004) 1 RAJ CRI C 201], [(2004) SC CR R 352], [(2004) 1 RAJ LW 14], [(2003) 2 RAJ LR 492], [2004 CHANDLR(CIV&CRI) 449], [(2003) 10 INDLD 580], [(2003) 4 CRIMES 74], [(2003) 2 UC 1388], [(2003) 2 HINDULR 523], [(2003) 26 OCR 606], [(2003) 4 RECCRIR 189], [(2003) 3 CURCRIR 242], [(2003) 3 ALLCRIR 2849], [(2003) 6 SCALE 742], [(2003) 47 ALLCRIC 897], [(2003) 3 BLJ 531], [2003 (2) ALD(CRL) 765], [(2003) 3 WLC (RAJ) 593]
Other Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1017614/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609adcce4b01497114124ee
https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/deb-narayan-halder-vs-smt-anushree-halder
Index of Maintenance Judgments are here.
In this judgment from Allahabad High court, maintenance for knife is denied on the ground that she is able to maintain herself as she is earning more than 2200/-per month but allowed for the minor child, even when the husband and knife are divorced.
Supreme Court laid out this judgment to the extent of… Hindu woman marrying a Hindu man having a lawfully wedded wife is not entitled to maintenance.
From Para 8,
8. We therefore, hold that the marriage of a woman in accordance with the Hindu rites with a man having a living spouse is a complete nullity in the eye of law and she is not entitled to the benefit of s. 125 of the Code.
In this Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment, Dr. Justice D Siva Sankara Rao ordered that as no relation exists in the nature of marriage, no maintenance is maintainable in section 125 as well as Domestic Violence Cases.
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 (apart from an application for Contempt of Courts), 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
Allahabad High Court
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Trial Courts:
Bombay High Court
Calcutta High Court
Chhattisgarh High Court
Delhi High Court Judgments
Trial Courts:
Gauhathi High Court
Gujarat High Court
Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
Jharkhand High Court
Karnataka High Court
Kerala High Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Madras High Court
Orissa High Court
Patna High Court
Punjab and Haryana High Court
Telangana High Court
Uttarakhand High Court
Index of all Maintenance judgments is here.
This Allahabad High Court judgment also clarifies established below legal point in Maintenance case under section 125 of CrPC. It relies on Deoki here.
In the absence of any custom and in absence of any decree for divorce, it cannot be said that marriage between Alok Berman and Smt. Rani was dissolved, which goes to show that Alok Berman was still legally married husband of Smt. Rani, who was, admittedly, alive at the time of marriage of Smt. Kiran Dhar with Alok Berman, and the marriage between them was not annulled as per law.
Further,
26. Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act clearly requires a petition either by the husband or the wife for dissolving the marriage by decree or divorce on the ground mentioned in Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act. No other form of divorce has been recognized by Hindu Marriage Act. Annexure 5 is an agreement between Alok Berman and his earlier wife – Smt. Rani in which parties had signed a divorced deed in which they have stated that they are dissolving the marriage by this deed on the conditions mentioned in the deed. Condition no.6 is also very relevant in which she has stated that if either of the parties filed a divorce case in the Court, then another party will give consent to the divorce without making any objection.
27. It is not on record as to whether any suit for divorce was filed by Smt. Rani or not. In absence of any document and decree of divorce by the court, it can safely be presumed that no such application was moved by either of parties before the competent court for dissolution of marriage. In view of this, the only evidence of divorce is the document Annexure 5. This document has not seen the light of day during any divorce proceeding. Hindu Marriage Act does not recognize any divorce of such type. It has also not been averred and proved that there was such custom in the society of parties to recognize such type of divorce.
28. In the absence of any custom and in absence of any decree for divorce, it cannot be said that marriage between Alok Berman and Smt. Rani was dissolved, which goes to show that Alok Berman was still legally married husband of Smt. Rani, who was, admittedly, alive at the time of marriage of Smt. Kiran Dhar with Alok Berman, and the marriage between them was not annulled as per law.
29. In view of Sections 5 (1) and 11 of Hindu Marriage Act and also in view of decision of Apex Court in Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav and another (supra) the marriage between Smt. Kiran Dhar and Alok Berman is void ab initio, and she is not entitled to maintenance.
30. It is also clear from the decision of Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav and another (supra) that even if the second wife (Smt. Kiran Dhar) was not aware of first marriage of her husband with another woman, she is not entitled to any maintenance.
Citations: [2015 DMC ALL 2 357], [2014 ALLCC 86 807], [2015 ACR 1 945], [2014 ALR 106 405], [2015 CRIMES ALL 1 607], [2014 SCC ONLINE ALL 15005], [2015 ALL LJ 1 391], [2014 AIC 142 877], [2015 HLR 2 522]
Other Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/187951850/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56b492ff607dba348f003b0a
https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/AdvancedV2?docid=158933
Another judgment this time from Bombay High Court, which says no cruelty proved in maintenance case under section 125 CrPC results in no maintenance to Knife.
This sentence in last para is not appreciable though.
However, the payment of maintenance allowance, if any, during the intervening period, is not refundable by her.
Note: This is how the false case filers are encouraged/supported by Judiciary in India.
Bad Behavior has blocked 1453 access attempts in the last 7 days.
