Section 125 CrPC Maintenance — Procedure, Quantification and Recent Supreme Court Standards (2026)

Section 125(1) provides for maintenance against a 'person having sufficient means' who 'neglects or refuses to maintain':

(a) Wife — includes a divorced wife who has not remarried (Section 125 Explanation(b)). 'Wife' includes a woman whose marriage is void on certain grounds (per Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v Anantrao Shivram Adhav (1988) 1 SCC 530 — a second wife of a subsisting marriage cannot claim, but a woman married through a void ceremony where the void status is later proved may claim limited maintenance). Live-in partners do not qualify under Section 125 (see Indra Sarma v V K V Sarma (2013) 15 SCC 755), but can claim under the Domestic Violence Act 2005.

(b) Legitimate or illegitimate minor child — until the child attains majority (18). For an unmarried daughter who is an adult but cannot maintain herself due to physical or mental disability, maintenance can continue beyond majority.

(c) Major child unable to maintain himself due to physical or mental abnormality.

(d) Father or mother unable to maintain themselves — the burden of proving inability is on the parent. Even where the parent has property but no income, courts have ordered maintenance from earning children.

The respondent: must be a 'person having sufficient means'. Sufficient means is not the same as having actual income — it includes earning capacity, asset base, and ability to earn. The Supreme Court has held that an unemployed husband with earning capacity cannot escape maintenance liability.

The Supreme Court in Rajnesh v Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 standardised maintenance quantification across India after observing the wide divergence in awards by different Family Courts. The Rajnesh framework has four components:

1. Mandatory Affidavits of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities
Both parties must file detailed affidavits in a standard format (annexed to the Rajnesh judgment) disclosing:

• All sources of income (salary, business income, rental, interest, dividends, others) with TDS/Form 16/audited accounts.
• Liabilities (loans, EMIs, credit card outstandings).
• Assets (immovable, movable, financial investments).
• Dependants (other than the maintenance claimant).
• Standard of living during cohabitation.

All subsequent Family Courts have adopted the Rajnesh affidavit format. Refusal to file is treated as adverse inference.

2. Standard of Living test
The wife is entitled to maintenance that allows her to live in the same standard of living as during cohabitation. The Court determines this from the affidavits and the marriage period's lifestyle (housing, education of children, holidays, social engagements).

3. Income proportion approach
While not a rigid formula, the Court has guided that maintenance should typically be 25-35% of the husband's net income (after standard deductions) for the wife, with additional separate maintenance for each minor child.

4. Net income calculation
The Court excludes legitimate deductions: income-tax, provident fund, ESI, statutory deductions, established and recurring loan EMIs (with documentary proof). It does NOT exclude voluntary investments (e.g. SIPs, additional savings) — those are post-maintenance choices.

Worked example (Rajnesh-style):

• Husband's gross income: ₹2,00,000/month.
• Statutory deductions: ₹40,000/month.
• Net income: ₹1,60,000/month.
• Documented EMIs: ₹30,000/month.
• Available for maintenance + own expenses: ₹1,30,000/month.
• Wife (no income, no separate household): typically 25-30% = ₹32,000-39,000/month.
• One minor child (custody with wife): separate ₹15,000-25,000/month for child.
• Total likely maintenance order: ₹45,000-65,000/month.

Variations apply where the wife has her own income (proportionate reduction) or where children's needs are higher (special needs, expensive schooling already established during cohabitation).

Section 125 / 144 is summary in nature — designed for quick relief, not elaborate trial.

Step 1 — Application under Section 125(1) / Section 144(1) BNSS to the Magistrate of First Class (typically the Family Court Magistrate or, where no Family Court, the Judicial Magistrate) of the place where:
(a) the respondent is, or
(b) the respondent or wife last resided together, or
(c) the wife resides.

The application briefly states: the relationship, the respondent's neglect or refusal, the applicant's inability to maintain herself, and the quantum sought.

Step 2 — Notice to respondent, typically 2-3 weeks.

Step 3 — Interim maintenance application under Section 125(2) / Section 144(2) BNSS. The Court can order interim maintenance pending final disposal. Rajnesh specifically directed that interim maintenance applications must be decided within 60 days of receipt. In practice this is the most common application — final orders take 18-24 months but interim is granted in 2-4 months.

Step 4 — Affidavits of disclosure by both parties under the Rajnesh template. Documents in support — salary slips, Form 16, bank statements, rent agreements, asset documents.

Step 5 — Evidence. The wife examines herself; the husband cross-examines. The husband then examines himself; the wife cross-examines. Documentary evidence is marked.

Step 6 — Arguments and order.

Step 7 — Recovery. If the respondent fails to pay, Section 125(3) / Section 144(3) BNSS allows the Court to issue a warrant for levying the unpaid amount in the manner provided for fines, and may sentence the respondent to imprisonment for up to one month per breach (cumulative).

Section 24 HMA — Hindu wives can claim interim maintenance under both Section 24 HMA (in matrimonial proceedings) and Section 125 CrPC (independent). Courts have held that the amounts are adjustable — an order under one is to be taken into account by the other to prevent double recovery. Strategic use: file Section 125 first for quick interim relief, then claim Section 24 in divorce proceedings.

Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1956 — provides for maintenance to Hindu wives independently of any matrimonial proceeding. Less commonly used than Section 125 because it is civil (slower) and not summary.

Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986 — post-iddat maintenance for Muslim divorced women is governed by Section 3 of this Act. Shabana Bano v Imran Khan (2010) 1 SCC 666 held that a Muslim divorced woman is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC also (in addition to Section 3 of the 1986 Act) until she remarries — a more favourable rule for Muslim women than the original Shah Bano controversy assumed.

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 — under Section 20 of the DV Act, the Magistrate can order monetary relief including maintenance. DV Act maintenance is adjustable against Section 125 / Section 24 HMA. The advantage of DV Act maintenance is the broader concept of 'domestic relationship' (covers live-in partners, sisters, daughters living together) compared to the narrow 'wife' definition under Section 125.