Anupati Rajesh Vs Peruboina Anusha Sai on 05 Feb 2024

Posted on February 19, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A perverse order passed by the AP High Court, totally bypassing the intent of the Apex Court is prescribing the guidelines in Rajnesh Vs Neha decision here.

From Paras 6-7,

6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the court below erred in allowing the petition even without filing the statement of assets and liabilities and further that the respondent herself deserted the petitioner and yet, sought maintenance, and therefore, she is not entitled to claim any interim maintenance. It is also submitted by him that without there being any evidence of income of the petitioner, the Court below granted interim maintenance of exorbitant amount, which is unsustainable. In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha and others1, wherein at paragraph No.99, it was held as follows:
“99. The Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities annexed as Enclosures I, II and III of this judgment, as may be applicable, shall be filed by both parties in all maintenance proceedings, including pending proceedings before the concerned Family Court/District Court/Magistrates Court, as the case may be, throughout the country.”
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner has not raised any objection before the trial Court about the statement to be filed nor did he file any such statement. He further submitted that the petitioner herein did not dispute his income in the counter filed by him and further, after considering the facts and allegations submitted on both sides, the impugned order was passed by the Court below, and therefore, the same does not require any interference.

From Paras 9-11,

9. The petitioner herein has not raised any objection that the interim order cannot be granted in view of non-filing of such a statement by the respondent herein. As such, the trial Court had no opportunity to decide on that aspect. Hence, the petitioner cannot contend that the impugned order is illegal on that ground.
10. As rightly contended, the petitioner herein in his counter did not specifically deny his earnings and he merely stated that the respondent/wife did not file any proof in support of the income stated in the petition. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly taken the earning capacity of the revision petitioner into consideration while fixing the quantum of maintenance.
11. Insofar as the question of desertion by the respondent herein is concerned, it is a matter of enquiry after full-fledged trial and prima facie there is no material on record to support the contention of the petitioner herein that the respondent herself deserted the petitioner as contended.

Anupati Rajesh Vs Peruboina Anusha Sai on 05 Feb 2024

Index of all maintenance cases is here.

Balram Dixit Vs Kiran Dixit and Anr on 17 Jan 2024

Posted on January 31, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior bench held as follow:

The Supreme Court in case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 considering the issues relating to grant of interim-maintenance, observed that the maintenance is decided on the basis of pleadings of the parties and some amount of guess work. Both the parties submit scanty material and do not disclose correct details. Keeping that in view, the Supreme Court laid down the procedure to streamline grant of maintenance. These guidelines were laid down in exercise of power under Article 136 read with Article 142 of Constitution of India prescribing a uniform format of Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities to be filed in every proceeding relating to maintenance.
The Supreme Court in case of Aditi alias Mithi versus Jitesh Sharma 2023 SCC Online SC 1451 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.
The copy of Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities submitted by Balram Dixit and Kiran Dixit show that most of the entries are filled cursorily without providing requisite particulars. Consequently, learned Principal Judge could not consider availability of source of income with the parties and their standard of living before the matrimonial discord. Non-compliance with the guidelines in its true spirit and substance is not acceptable.
In view of the above, the impugned order dated 08.02.2023 is set aside with the direction that both the parties shall submit fresh Affidavits of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities with complete particulars in compliance with the directions of the Supreme Court laid down in case of Rajnesh (supra). Learned Additional Judge to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior shall ensure strict compliance with the guidelines. If any of the affidavit is lacking in requisite particulars, learned Judge shall demand relevant particulars from concerned party. This exercise shall be completed within 15 days. If any of the parties fails to comply with the directions, appropriate action with regard to non-compliance may be taken against such party. Learned Principal Judge on consideration of the affidavits and material on record, pass an order afresh on application for interim-maintenance.

Balram Dixit Vs Kiran Dixit and Anr on 17 Jan 2024

Index of Maintenance cases here.

Gitanjali Devi Vs State of Bihar and Anr on 02 Dec 2023

Posted on January 31, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Patna High Court held as follow:

From Paras 6-10,

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, this Court finds that in the court below the applicant-petitioner did not submit any proof of income of her husband. Her husband (opposite party no.2) filed his salary details and the bank account of the Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Delhi from which it appears that he was employed at Batra Hospital, Delhi in 2008 and was getting Rs.7524/- as salary till May, 2008. On the face of the discussions made in the impugned order, this Court has no doubt that the court has not followed the procedures which were mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of Rajnesh (supra).
7. The aforesaid judgment in the case of Rajnesh (supra) has been recently reiterated in the case of Aditi Alias Mithi (supra).
8. This Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order is liable to be set aside for the reason that it has not followed the procedures prescribed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
9. The impugned order is, accordingly, set aside and the matter is remitted to the court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, West Champaran, Bettiah for fresh consideration and by following the procedures which are laid down in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
10. The parties shall be given an opportunity to file their respective affidavits and pleadings within a reasonable period.

Gitanjali Devi Vs State of Bihar and Anr on 02 Dec 2023

Index of Maintenance cases here.

Rijas MT Vs Hafseena M on 15 Nov 2023

Posted on January 31, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Kerala High Court held as follow:

From Para 29-32, (Regarding issuing of arrest warrants without following procedure u/s 421 Cr.P.C.)

29. Now, coming to the next question regarding the failure of the Family Court in not following the procedure for levy of fines as contemplated under Section 421 of the Code.
30. Section 125 (3) extracted above, stipulates that in case of failure of a person to comply with an order to pay maintenance without sufficient cause, then for every breach, the Magistrate has to issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the same manner provided for levying fines.
32. It is well-settled in a whole line of precedents that the Courts shall not order a warrant of arrest against a defaulter, without following the procedure under Section 421 of the Code.

From Para 33,

33. Nonetheless, after the pronouncement of the celebrated judgment in Rajnesh v. Neha (supra), a revolutionary change has been brought in the procedure to be followed by the courts in dealing with the applications filed under Chapter IX of the Code. 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 Code or for contempt of court.
34. In the instant case, the Family Court, following the directions laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha (supra), directed both parties to file their affidavits of disclosure in the original proceedings. The revision petitioner filed his affidavit stating that he had no movable or immovable properties. Again, on the execution side, the Family Court directed the first respondent to file an affidavit regarding the assets of the revision petitioner, and she reiterated that the revision petitioner had no assets or properties. Based on the affirmation in the affidavits, that the revision petitioner had no movable or immovable properties, the Family Court issued a non-bailable warrant against the revision petitioner. I do not find any error or illegality in the procedure adopted by the Family Court in the post-Rajnesh era. Once a party declares on oath that he has no movable and immovable properties, it would be an empty formality to follow the procedure under Section 421 because, ultimately, the enquiry by the revenue authorities would yield the same result as disclosed by the parties on solemn affirmation. The exposition of the law in Rajnesh was to remove the stumbling blocks in the procedure and the inordinate delay being caused in the disposal of maintenance applications and the enforcement of the orders. It is trite, that procedural laws are handmaids of justice. Therefore, the dispensation of the procedure under Section 421 of the Code, in a case where the respondent disclosed that he has no movable or immovable property, is justifiable and sustainable in law. In the emerged scenario post Rajnesh, I do not find any meaningful purpose in the Courts ritualistically following the procedure under Section 421, especially after the respondent states on oath that he has no property, other than to prolong the miseries of the persons living in vagrancy.

Rijas MT Vs Hafseena M on 15 Nov 2023

Index of Maintenance cases here.

Chinta Vamshi Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 16 Oct 2023

Posted on November 12, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Telangana High Court held as follows:

6. On perusal of record, it is evident that neither of the parties filed their affidavits reflecting their assets and liabilities. As per the directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, while granting maintenance, the trial Court shall receive the affidavits containing assets and liabilities of both the parties and basing on the same, the trial Court shall decide whether maintenance should be awarded or not. In the present case, the trial Court did not follow the guidelines of the Hon’ble Apex Court. Therefore, the impugned order dated 11.08.2022 is liable to be set aside.

Chinta Vamshi Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 16 Oct 2023

Index of Maintenance Judgments is here.

Maintenance Judgments

Posted on October 21, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

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.

Telangana High Court gave a wonderful order here, confirming that any order passed by Trial Courts, without calling for the Income affidavits is void ab initio and therefore is liable to set aside and matters will be remanded back to the same Trial Courts for fresh adjudication.
Then another 2-judge bench of Apex Court has to Order re-circulation of above judgment in Aditi Sharma Vs Jitesh Sharma, because the Trial Court Judges stopped following Supreme Court judgement here. Exactly after 3 long years!!!
There are other High Courts which set aside the trial Court orders for the singular reason that they did not follow Rajnesh Vs Neha. Check them out here.
- Calcutta HC in Nripendra Chandra Mahanta Vs Pramila Mahanta on 08 Feb 2023
- Allahabad HC in Parul Tyagi Vs Gaurav Tyagi on 04 Aug 2023
- Telangana HC in Chinta Vamshi Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 16 Oct 2023
- Kerala HC in Rijas MT Vs Hafseena M on 15 Nov 2023
- Patna HC in Gitanjali Devi Vs State of Bihar and Anr on 02 Dec 2023
- Karnataka HC in Darshanik M M Vs Poornima A on 04 Dec 2023
- MP HC in Balram Dixit Vs Kiran Dixit and Anr on 17 Jan 2024
  - It seems AP High Court is hell bent not to follow Rajnesh Vs Neha… and passed this perverse order here with a trivial reason. Karma!
- AP HC following my success story in Sreekanth Vs Nalini in Meegada Venu Gopala Rao Vs Meegada Usha Rani and Ors on 10 Jul 2024. Happy!!!
- AP HC in Kalavakuru Srinivas Kumar Reddy Vs Kalavakuru @ Revuru Sujatha and Ors on 05 Feb 2025 [My client’s case]
- Orissa HC in Nabaghana Sahoo Vs Smruti Prava Sahoo and Anr on 11 Feb 2025 [neither of the parties has filed the disclosure affidavit as mandated in Rajnesh]
- Kerala HC in Ratheesh Vs Sreelakshmi and Ors on 14 Mar 2025 (Even to dispose Interim Maintenance Applications, call for affidavits)
- Patna HC in Ravi Prakash Saxena Vs Priyanka Rani on 04 Sep 2025 [Remanded case back to the same Trial Courts for fresh adjudication]
- Madras HC in N.Santhosh Kumar Vs S.Priyadarshini on 25 Oct 2025 [Lied on the Income Affidavit, so interim maintenance reduced]

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.

Instances of the appellant’s deliberate attempts to mislead the judicial process
Withheld critical financial documents
Selectively disclosed information to conceal the full extent of his wealth
False representations by the appellant regarding his property and income
Demonstrated a pattern of deliberate suppression of material facts and assets

Allahabad HC in Atul Kumar Bajpai Vs State of UP and Anr on 17 Sep 2025 held that Perjury applications alleging false evidence/affidavit must be first Disposed

MASTER SITEMAP here.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) – Maintenance Law & Judgments in India

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:

Wife, including a divorced woman who has not remarried
Minor children unable to maintain themselves
Adult children suffering from disability or illness
Parents who cannot support themselves

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:

A valid marital or legal relationship
Neglect or refusal to maintain by the respondent
The applicant is unable to maintain themselves
The respondent has sufficient financial means

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:

Income and financial capacity of the respondent
Lifestyle and standard of living during marriage
Needs of the claimant and dependents
Educational and employment status of the parties
Reasonable expenses for food, clothing, and shelter

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:

Is living in adultery
Refuses to live with her husband without sufficient reason
Lives separately by mutual consent
Has sufficient independent income to maintain herself

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.

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 (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

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)
Deb Narayan Halder Vs Anushree Halder on 26 August, 2003 [No maintenance for Deserter wife 144(4) BNSS/125(4) CrPC]
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 ]
Anju Garg and Anr Vs Deepak Kumar Garg on 28 Sep 2022 [An able-bodied husband must provide financial support and cannot escape liability]
Aditi Sharma Vs Jitesh Sharma on 06 Nov 2023 [Reiterated/re-circulated Rajnesh Vs Neha to all High Courts]
Rina Kumari Vs Dinesh Kumar Mahto and Anr on 10 Jan 2025 [Being successful in RCR case doesn’t automatically disqualify the wife from maintenance under 125 CrPC/144 BNSS]
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 is not correct law, in case of non payment of maintenance)
Parul Tyagi Vs Gaurav Tyagi on 04 Aug 2023 [IMP: 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]
Mohammad Rizwan Khan Vs State of UP and Anr on 08 Sep 2025 (Dispose Perjury First; Adultery allegations)
Atul Kumar Bajpai Vs State of UP and Anr on 17 Sep 2025 (Dispose Perjury First; False RvN Affidavit allegations)
Ankit Saha Vs State of UP and Anr on 03 Dec 2025 [Failed to prove unable to support herself and came to Court with unclean hands; Relies on Rekha Sharad Ushir Vs Saptashrungi Mahila Nagari Sahkari Patsansta Ltd on 26 Mar 2025]

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)
Devendra Vs Trupti Devendra on 27 Sep 2022 [Seeking maintenance for daughter after MCD]
Prakash Dheple Vs Vithabai and Anr on 10 May 2024 [Impose interest on Maintenance arrears]

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)
Jagdamba Trivedi Vs Neha Trivedi on 18 Jan 2021 [Importance of Section 421 Cr.P.C., arrest warrant in 125(3) Cr.P.C. cases; Follow Rajnesh Vs Neha for recovery of the amount of maintenance]
Birendra Kumar Tiwari Vs Neetu Tiwari on 07 Dec 2022 [Major daughter not eligible to seek maintenance u/s 144 BNSS]
Resham Lal Dewangan Vs Suman Dewangan on 09 May 2025 [Once a divorce decree is granted on the ground that wife is living in adultery then, wife suffers from the disqualification to claim maintenance from her ex-husband]

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]
Binita Dass Vs Uttam Kumar on 9 Aug 2019 [ Wife who is independent and have source of income, can be a ground to deny interim maintenance]
Sandeep Walia Vs Monika Uppal on 18 Jul 2022 [Petitioner was not truthful in disclosure of his correct income in his affidavit]
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]
Naveen Kumar Vs Kavita on 01 Jul 2025 [When ad interim Maintenance can be granted; Interim Maintenance cannot be granted without an Interim Maintenance application]
Nidhi Jain Vs Ankit Jain on 31 Jul 2025 [Allow 311 recall petition]
Geeta and Anr Vs State and Anr on 10 Sep 2025 [Concealing actual income and withholding the most relevant documents in his affidavit which alone could establish her present financial incapacity should lead to adverse inference against wife]
Arshi Parveen Vs Maqsood on 5 Jan 2026 [Courts can assess a husband’s income on minimum wages where financial disclosure is incomplete and enhanced interim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Tasmeer Qureshi Vs Asfia Mazaffar on 29 Oct 2025 [Courts must assess income before fixing interim maintenance and remanded the matter for fresh determination.]
Vinod Kumar Vs Seema Devi and Anr on 16 Mar 2026

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]
Lakshmayya Vs M.Shivalingamma and Anr on 04 Mar 2024 [ex parte Final Maintenance order set aside]
K.L Rangaswamy Vs Sharadha. D on 20 Mar 2024 [Unclean hands; Liable for perjury; Interim Maintenance denial Order upheld]
Srinivasa D Vs Asha on 20 Mar 2025 [Landmark judgment to rectify baseless Orders of maintenance by Family Court judges in Karnataka]
Vinod Kumar K Vs Chaitra N on 3 Apr 2025 [Unclean hands; Liable for perjury; Interim Maintenance denial Order upheld; Refund of Interim Maintenance amount ordered]

Kerala High Court

Rajesh R. Nair Vs Meera Babu on 5 Mar 2013 (Spouses living separately with mutual consent; No maintenance can be allowed)
Arun R.Naik Vs Shwetha Arun Naik and Anr on 17 May 2021 [Direction to enhance Maintenance amount at 10% annually is set aside]
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]
Ratheesh Vs Sreelakshmi and Ors on 14 Mar 2025 (Even to dispose Interim Maintenance Applications, call for affidavits)
S.Mumthas and Anr Vs M.Nizar @ Nizarudeen and Anr [No direct arrest warrant may be issued without issuing a distress warrant]
Jinesh CR Vs Aswathy PR on 19 Nov 2025 [Maintenance denied due to adultery]

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]
Sumit Raj Shivhare Vs Anushree Gupta Shivhare on 05 Nov 2024 [To enhance Maintenance amount at 5% annually]

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)
N.Santhosh Kumar Vs S.Priyadarshini on 25 Oct 2025 [Lied on the Income Affidavit, so interim maintenance reduced]
Alagarsamy Vs Mangalasundari and Anr on 20 Nov 2025 []

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]
Rajesh Kumar Vs Nutan Devi on 18 Feb 2025 [To enhance Maintenance amount at 5% annually; if not paid, invoke contempt of courts]
Vivek Kumar Singh Vs Pallawi Kumari on 11 Mar 2025
Ravi Prakash Saxena Vs Priyanka Rani on 04 Sep 2025 [Remanded case back to the same Trial Courts for fresh adjudication]

Punjab and Haryana High Court

Asha Rani Vs Ranjit Singh on 11 Dec 2024 [No maintenance for Educated wife]
Anu Aggarwal Vs Sushant Aggarwal on 20 Jan 2026 [Concealed material facts in Income Affidavit]

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: Not followed Guidelines in Rajnesh Vs Neha Judgment

Anupati Rajesh Vs Peruboina Anusha Sai on 05 Feb 2024

Balram Dixit Vs Kiran Dixit and Anr on 17 Jan 2024

Gitanjali Devi Vs State of Bihar and Anr on 02 Dec 2023

Rijas MT Vs Hafseena M on 15 Nov 2023

Chinta Vamshi Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 16 Oct 2023

Maintenance Judgments

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) – Maintenance Law & Judgments in India

Maintenance Judgments under Section 125 CrPC [Section 144 BNSS]

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) – Maintenance Law & Judgments in India

1. What is maintenance under Indian family law?+

2. Who can claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC?+

3. What must be proved to obtain maintenance from a spouse?+

4. Can a working or educated spouse still claim maintenance?+

5. What factors do courts consider while deciding the amount of maintenance?+

6. Can interim maintenance be granted during the pendency of a case?+

7. When can a wife be denied maintenance under the law?+

8. Can parents claim maintenance from their children?+

9. Can maintenance be claimed after divorce?+

10. How do courts ensure transparency in maintenance cases?+

11. What is the objective behind maintenance laws in India?+

12. Has the maintenance provision changed under the new criminal law?+