Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents
Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deals with order for maintenance of wives, children and parents. If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain— (a) his wife, unable to maintain herself; The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(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.
Section 144, The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure
CRPC 125 Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents Text carried over almost unchanged 95%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Rajnesh v. Neha
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 125, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Comprehensive affidavit-of-disclosure regime for maintenance across CrPC 125, HMA 24/25 and DV Act monetary relief. Overlapping awards must be adjusted; timelines and formats annexed.
On this section: BNSS 144 is the mapped successor of CrPC 125; Rajnesh disclosure directions apply to the successor provision.
-
Hiral P. Harsora vs Kusum Narottamdas Harsora
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 125, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The words 'adult male person' in the definition of 'respondent' in Section 2(q) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are unconstitutional as they violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The restriction creates an arbitrary classification lacking intelligible differentia and rational nexus with the Act's stated object of protecting women from domestic violence of any kind. A gender-based and age-based restriction cannot serve the purpose of a beneficial statute designed to protect women from violence perpetrated by any person within a domestic relationship or shared household. The words 'adult male' must be deleted from Section 2(q) through application of the severability doctrine, leaving the remainder of the Act intact to achieve its constitutional purpose. The proviso to Section 2(q) becomes otiose and is also rendered void upon deletion of these words.
On this section: Referenced in context of maintenance provisions under the 2005 Act and its relationship to criminal procedure provisions.
-
Sabu Joseph vs K. A. Abbas
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 125, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A court exercising jurisdiction under Section 357(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code can impose a default sentence of imprisonment in case of non-payment of the compensation amount ordered, as such compensation is recoverable as if it were a fine under Section 431 Cr.P.C read with Section 421 and Section 64 IPC, and such default sentence serves as a mode of enforcement to ensure accused pays compensation to the victim. The legislative intention reflected in Sections 357(3), 421, 431 and 64 read together clearly empowers courts to impose default sentences for non-payment of compensation awarded under Section 357(3).
On this section: Referenced in Kuldip Kaur case to distinguish between mode of enforcement (imprisonment) and mode of satisfaction (actual payment) of liability.
-
Durgesh Sharma vs Jayshree
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 125, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A High Court has no power, authority or jurisdiction to transfer a case, appeal or other proceeding pending in a Court subordinate to it to any Court subordinate to another High Court. Only the Supreme Court of India, in exercise of power under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, can effect such transfer. Section 23(3) of the CPC is merely a procedural provision specifying the forum for making an application and does not confer substantive power of transfer. Where courts are subordinate to different High Courts, application for transfer must be made to the Supreme Court under Section 25. The provisions of Sections 22 to 25 of the CPC relating to transfer are exhaustive in nature, and no other provision or inherent power can be invoked to effect inter-High Court transfers.
On this section: Provides for maintenance of wives. Respondent-wife initiated proceedings under this section at Malegaon. The section operates independently and does not affect the jurisdiction questions concerning the matrimonial petition under Hindu Marriage Act.
-
Kunapareddy @ Nookala Shanka Balaji vs Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 125, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Courts dealing with petitions/complaints filed under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 have the inherent power to allow amendments to such petitions/complaints even though no specific amendment provision exists in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Such amendments can be allowed in appropriate cases where: (1) the amendment relates to curable infirmities or subsequent events creating new causes of action; (2) allowing the amendment serves to avoid multiplicity of litigation; (3) no cognizance has been taken or summons issued; (4) the amendment does not fundamentally change the nature of the complaint; and (5) no prejudice is caused to the respondent. The civil nature of reliefs available under the Domestic Violence Act and the Legislature's intent as reflected in Section 28(2) support the exercise of this power.
On this section: Provides for maintenance of women and children. Court drew analogy noting that maintenance proceedings under this section are treated as civil in nature despite being in criminal courts.
-
Kunapareddy @ Nookala Shanka Balaji vs Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 125, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Courts exercising jurisdiction under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 possess the power to allow amendments to petitions/complaints filed by aggrieved persons, notwithstanding the absence of an explicit amendment provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, where such amendments: (1) relate to easily curable infirmities, (2) do not cause prejudice to the respondent, and (3) are necessary to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and serve the ends of justice. This power derives from the inherent authority of courts under the Constitution, the dual nature (criminal procedure with civil character) of DV proceedings as reflected in Section 28(2) of the DV Act, and the purposive interpretation of statutes protecting fundamental rights of women.
On this section: Section 125 (maintenance of wives and children) was cited as an analogous provision where proceedings are governed by CrPC but are treated as essentially civil in nature. The Court drew comparison to show that absence of explicit amendment provisions does not necessarily preclude amendment powers. Section 482 is cited in context of the High Court's power to quash proceedings.
-
Saraswathy vs Babu
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 125, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The conduct of the respondent-husband in preventing the appellant-wife from residing in the shared household, even after court orders granting her restitution of conjugal rights, constitutes continuance of domestic violence including economic abuse. Conduct of parties prior to the enactment of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 can be taken into consideration while passing orders under Sections 18, 19, and 20 of the PWD Act, 2005. In cases of continued domestic violence following court orders, courts are competent to grant protection orders, residence orders, maintenance, and compensation for mental torture and emotional distress under the PWD Act, 2005.
On this section: Maintenance proceedings; Referenced in PWD Act Section 20(d) as an alternative or concurrent provision for maintenance
-
Pyla Mutyalamma @ Satyavathi vs Pyla Suri Demudu
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 125, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a husband takes a plea that a second marriage is void due to subsistence of an earlier marriage, the burden of proving the subsistence of such earlier valid marriage lies on the husband and requires clear and strict proof. The standard of proof required in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is less stringent than that required in criminal prosecutions under Section 494 IPC. In maintenance proceedings, the Magistrate need only find that there was a marriage ceremony, the parties lived as husband and wife, and children were borne of the union. If affirmative evidence on these points is led, the Magistrate is justified in granting maintenance without entering into complicated questions regarding the legal validity of marriage, which are matters for the civil court. The presumption of valid marriage arising from long cohabitation and living together as husband and wife is a strong presumption meant to protect women and children from destitution. The High Court in its revisional jurisdiction cannot reappreciate evidence and substitute its own findings for those of the Magistrate in regard to positive findings about the existence of marriage. Accordingly, where a Magistrate has granted maintenance finding the applicant to be a deserted wife who has proved cohabitation and birth of children from the union, the High Court cannot set aside such order merely by taking a different view of the evidence.
On this section: Provision providing for grant of maintenance to wives, children, and parents. Court applied this as a measure of social justice to prevent vagrancy and destitution. The court held that Section 125 is remedial in nature and proceedings are based on de facto marriage, not marriage de jure.
-
Shabana Bano vs Imran Khan
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 125, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A divorced Muslim woman is entitled to claim maintenance from her divorced husband under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code even after the expiry of the iddat period, as long as she does not remarry. The Family Court has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate such maintenance claims. The provisions of the Family Courts Act, 1984 have overriding effect and the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 does not exclude the availability of Section 125 Cr.P.C. as an alternative remedy for maintenance. This beneficial legislation must accrue to divorced Muslim women.
On this section: Court held that provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. remain applicable to divorced Muslim women as long as they do not remarry, providing a statutory remedy for maintenance independent of personal law
-
Reema Aggarwal vs Anupam
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 125, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The expression 'husband' in Section 498-A IPC should be interpreted to include any person who enters into a marital relationship and exercises authority as a husband over a woman, subjecting her to cruelty, regardless of whether the marriage is valid or void. The applicability of Section 498-A depends on whether the woman is subjected to cruelty in a marital relationship, not on the legal validity of the marriage. Purposive interpretation must be applied to effectuate the legislative intent of protecting women from dowry-related harassment and cruelty, as the essential ingredient of Section 498-A is the subjecting of woman to cruelty, not the validity of the marriage itself.
On this section: Maintenance - cited in context of marriage validity requirements for civil rights
-
Pratyaksha Pal Choudhary vs Paritosh Singh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When parties to a matrimonial dispute enter into a comprehensive written settlement agreement providing for division of assets, transfer of property, and mutual dissolution of marriage, and both parties express unambiguous consent in person before the Supreme Court, the Court can exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution to: (1) dissolve the marriage by passing a decree of divorce by mutual consent; (2) waive the statutory waiting period normally required for divorce by mutual consent; (3) make the settlement agreement binding on both parties; (4) quash and dispose of all concurrent criminal proceedings (FIR and criminal revision petitions) pending in other courts as part of comprehensive settlement if parties consent; (5) quash and dispose of all concurrent civil proceedings (applications under Domestic Violence Act and other laws) pending in other courts as part of comprehensive settlement if parties consent; and (6) consolidate multi-jurisdictional proceedings into a single Supreme Court order to provide complete finality and prevent fragmented litigation. The exercise of Article 142 powers is appropriate where matrimonial settlement includes property transfer documented and registered, parties are present in person confirming consent, and consolidation of proceedings prevents further litigation burden and serves ends of justice.
On this section: Provision relating to civil disputes; Original Application No. 1302/2024 and Interim Application No. AR 1303/2024 filed under this section before Family Court, Bikaner, quashed and disposed in settlement order
-
Srishti Salwan vs Bhavesh Dua
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When parties to a matrimonial dispute resolve all criminal, civil, and matrimonial issues through mediation, the Supreme Court may exercise its power under Article 142 to dissolve the marriage and terminate all connected litigations to ensure complete justice.
On this section: Criminal complaint filed by wife under this section was quashed.
-
Shakti vs Anita
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 125, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases of irretrievable breakdown of marriage characterized by prolonged separation (10 years in this case), where both parties have reached consensus ad idem that the marriage cannot be salvaged, the Supreme Court can exercise its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution to grant a decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage and mutual consent, even though the specific statutory grounds under the Hindu Marriage Act may be disputed or reversed by lower courts. The continuation of a marriage devoid of substantive connection and characterized by acknowledged incompatibility becomes meaningless, and judicial intervention should facilitate dissolution rather than perpetuate a legal fiction. Additionally, when determining permanent alimony for a highly qualified woman who claims unemployment, the Court must consider the implausibility of permanent joblessness given her qualifications and may infer an ability to earn, while still providing reasonable financial security. The preferences of mature children regarding custody, when freely expressed and not contested, should be respected as consistent with their welfare.
On this section: Referenced in the context of pending maintenance application (CRA-128-2019) filed by the respondent before the Sessions Judge, Jhajjar. The Court ordered this proceeding to be closed/quashed as the alimony issue was addressed in the divorce decree itself.
-
Latika Sehgal vs Raj Sehgal
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 125, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In transfer applications relating to civil suits arising from matrimonial disputes, while the convenience of the wife is generally preferred, it is not an absolute rule. The court must balance the hardship and convenience of all parties involved, considering factors such as age, health, distance, and the nature of the litigation. In civil suits, the physical presence of parties is not required at every hearing, which reduces the burden of travel. When competing hardships exist and no medical evidence is provided to substantiate claims of severe health conditions, the court may dismiss the transfer application.
On this section: Proceedings for maintenance allowance were allowed by Family Court but upset by High Court; matter is pending before Supreme Court
-
Harpreet Kaur vs Jagtesh Singh
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 125, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When multiple related proceedings arising from the same matrimonial dispute are pending in different courts, and one party seeks consolidation of these proceedings in a single court for judicial efficiency and to prevent conflicting orders, the court may exercise its discretionary authority to transfer the case to the court where other related proceedings are pending, particularly when the respondent does not oppose the transfer and the circumstances of the case (such as the applicant's financial dependence and custody of a minor child) warrant such consolidation.
On this section: Maintenance petition filed by the applicant under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is pending in Family Court, Jagraon, which is one of the related proceedings that influenced the court's decision to transfer the guardianship petition to the same court.
-
Shweta @ Shikha Mukesh Tiwari vs Mukesh Kailash Tiwari
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 125, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Supreme Court has the power under Article 142 of the Constitution to grant a decree of divorce by mutual consent without strict adherence to the statutory waiting period under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, when parties have voluntarily reached a fair and comprehensive settlement agreement through mediation, have been living separately for a substantial period demonstrating irretrievable breakdown of marriage, and such exercise of power serves complete justice between parties and avoids multiplicity of litigation. Mediation-based settlements constitute valid and enforceable grounds for consolidation and disposal of all connected matrimonial and criminal proceedings across multiple courts through a unified Supreme Court order.
On this section: Maintenance petition under CrPC disposed through settlement agreement, demonstrating settlement supersedes statutory maintenance claims
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… Mr. Anshuman Ashok, AOR For Respondent(s) : UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. - 2. The petitioner seeks transfer of the Criminal Misc. Case No. 424/2026 titled as "Navdeep Kaur vs. Hari Singh Sandhu" filed under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 from the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Lakhimpur Kheri, Uttar Pradesh to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab. - 3. Having considered the facts of the case, as well as the grounds urged in support of the prayer for transfer …
-
… On account of the matrimonial dispute, the parties are residing separate. The applicant is not having any source of TA-350-2025 income and as such, is dependent upon her parental family. Even, she has filed the petition under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which is pending in the Courts at Faridkot and the respondent is making appearance in the same. The distance between the two places is stated to be about 80 kilometres. 2 In view of the aforesaid mitigating circumstances, more particularly, considering the …
-
… Two daughters born from the said wedlock, are in the care and custody of the applicant. TA-261-2025 The applicant has no source of earning and is dependent upon her parental family. Even, she has filed the petition under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which is pending in the Courts at Jind and the respondent is making appearance in the same. The distance between the two places is stated to be about 100 kilometres. In view of the aforesaid mitigating circumstances, more particularly, considering the fact of two …
Questions about Section 144
What have the courts held on Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
Rajnesh v. Neha (04 Nov 2020) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under CRPC 125, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: BNSS 144 is the mapped successor of CrPC 125; Rajnesh disclosure directions apply to the successor provision. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 14 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2004 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: BNSS 144, section 144 BNSS, section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. People searching for it also type bnss 144(4) in hindi and bnss 144(3). Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Rajnesh v. Neha (04 Nov 2020).
What should I read with Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and has it changed?
4 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. It carries forward CrPC 125 (Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita come into force?
Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, commonly called maintenance, maintenance of wife or 125 crpc, and cited as BNSS 144, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 359. Compounding of offences1355 words
- 187. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours1122 words
- 2. Definitions956 words
- 243. Trial for more than one offence930 words
- 35. When police may arrest without warrant881 words
- 480. When bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence823 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.