Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents
Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 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, or (b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or 1 Subs. The Act came into force on 01 Apr 1974. Repealed by section 531 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
(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 minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or
1 Subs. by Act 45 of 1978, s. 12, for "Chief Judicial Magistrate" (w.e.f, 18-12-1978).
(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 not exceeding five hundred rupees in the whole, 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 minor 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 minor female child, if married, is not possessed of sufficient means.
Explanation.-For the purposes of this Chapter,-
(a) "minor" means a person who, under the provisions of the
Indian Majority Act, 1875 (9 of 1875); is deemed not to have attained his majority;
(b) "wife" includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.
(2) Such allowance shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance.
(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 allowances 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 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 125, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974).
Now in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
BNSS 144 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
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: s.125 maintenance claims must follow the Rajnesh disclosure affidavits and overlapping-award adjustment.
-
Pyla Mutyalamma @ Satyavathi vs Pyla Suri Demudu
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
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
-
Hiral P. Harsora vs Kusum Narottamdas Harsora
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
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
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
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
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
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
-
Reema Aggarwal vs Anupam
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
-
Shakti vs Anita
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.
-
Shweta @ Shikha Mukesh Tiwari vs Mukesh Kailash Tiwari
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
-
Sanghamitra Ghosh vs Kajal Kumar Ghosh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Supreme Court can exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution to grant a decree of divorce by mutual consent in matrimonial transfer petitions where: (a) the marriage has irretrievably broken down as evidenced by prolonged separation and complete disappearance of emotional substratum; (b) both parties voluntarily agree to dissolution and have reached a comprehensive settlement; (c) such dissolution serves the interest of justice, the parties, and any minor children by putting quietus to all litigation and enabling peaceful future; and (d) the Court can consolidate all pending related cases across multiple courts and jurisdictions through a single order, overriding strict compliance with statutory procedural requirements of Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 where the spirit and purpose of the law are served.
On this section: Maintenance for wife and child - Reference case M-313/2003 for maintenance claims subsumed within settlement amount of Rs. 10 lacs
-
Latika Sehgal vs Raj Sehgal
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
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.
-
Kewal Singh Brar vs Kiranjit Kaur
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A major unmarried daughter is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and consequently, she is also not entitled to interim maintenance under the same provision. The Supreme Court's interpretation in Abhilasha versus Parkash is binding and applicable to all courts, including Family Courts.
On this section: Section 125(1)(c) specifically cited to establish that maintenance cannot be granted to a major unmarried daughter. The court applied this provision to hold that interim maintenance also cannot be granted to such daughters.
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.
-
… Act, 1955, seeking interim maintenance for herself and the minor son. - 2.5 The Trial Court, by order dated 14.01.2010, awarded interim maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- per month to the appellant-wife and Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation expenses. - 2.6 The appellant-wife then instituted Misc. Case No. 116 of 2010 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Trial Court, vide order dated 28.03.2014, directed the respondent-husband to pay maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- per month to the appellant-wife and Rs. 6,000/- per month to the minor son, along with Rs. 5,000/ towards litigation costs. - 2.7 The Trial Court, vide order …
-
… heard the learned Senior Advocate for the Appellant, as well as the learned amicus curiae at length and in the light of their submissions, it is requisite to consider the historical perspective, the grey areas leading to a clarified position of law by this Court regarding the secular provision of maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC 1973, as well as the rights guaranteed under personal law to a divorced Muslim woman through Section 3 of the 1986 Act. - 11. The legislature through Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and subsequently by introducing Section 125 CrPC 1973, sought to carry on the efficacious remedy through …
-
… Nos.90 of 2017 and 1102 of 2019. 3 The proceedings arose out of the order dated 09.11.2016 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Bilaspur, Chattisgarh in M.J.C. No.14 of 2016. While dealing with the application preferred by the wife, seeking appropriate maintenance in terms of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the proceedings were marked ex-parte against the husband for the reasons stated in the order. For facility, paragraphs 4 and 5 of the order are set out hereunder:- > "4. That, the non-applicant had not filed reply to the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. …
Questions about Section 125
What have the courts held on Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
Rajnesh v. Neha (04 Nov 2020) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: s.125 maintenance claims must follow the Rajnesh disclosure affidavits and overlapping-award adjustment. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 13 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2004 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
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: CRPC 125, section 125 CRPC, section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 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 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and has it changed?
3 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNSS 144 (Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure come into force?
Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, commonly called maintenance or maintenance of wife, and cited as CRPC 125, came into force on 01 Apr 1974, having been enacted on 25 Jan 1974. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 320. Compounding of offences1554 words
- 167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty four hours1005 words
- 220. Trial for more than one offence962 words
- 360. Order to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition804 words
- 2. Definitions799 words
- 198. Prosecution for offences against marriage774 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. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 330a1099-77ad-4a2e-b22a-769b33398f9e). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.