TL;DR: Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) is the direct successor to Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and governs maintenance for wives, children, and parents before a First Class Magistrate. Critically, the famous “Section 144” that banned assemblies under the old CrPC is now Section 163 BNSS, an important renumbering trap that practitioners must know. Maintenance runs from the date of filing the application, per Rajnesh v Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324.
On this page
- The renumbering trap: what “Section 144” means now
- Who can claim maintenance under BNSS Section 144
- Conditions that must be satisfied
- Who cannot claim, and when rights are forfeited
- How to file: procedure before the magistrate
- Interim maintenance and the 60-day rule
- Quantum: how courts calculate the amount
- Rajnesh v Neha: the governing guidelines
- Overlap with other maintenance laws
- Enforcement when the order is ignored
- How Niyam helps
- Frequently asked questions
- Key takeaways
The renumbering trap: what “Section 144” means now
Anyone trained under the old Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) carries a strong mental association: “Section 144” meant the District Magistrate’s power to issue prohibitory orders against unlawful assemblies, the provision routinely invoked before elections, protests, or communal situations.
That association is now wrong, and the error can be practically costly.
With effect from 1 July 2024, the BNSS replaced the CrPC. The renumbering is not a simple one-to-one shift. Here is how the two key sections moved:
| Old CrPC | Subject | New BNSS |
|---|---|---|
| Section 125 | Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents | Section 144 |
| Section 144 | Power to issue prohibitory orders in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger | Section 163 |
So if you cite “Section 144 BNSS” you are talking about maintenance. If you cite “Section 163 BNSS” you are talking about prohibitory orders. The Shah Bano case, Rajnesh v Neha, and decades of family-law jurisprudence all built on CrPC Section 125, that body of law now attaches to BNSS Section 144.
Courts, police, and press releases that speak of “Section 144” in 2024 or later may mean either Section 144 BNSS (maintenance) or, if speaking loosely about old precedents, CrPC Section 144 (prohibitory orders, now Section 163 BNSS). Always check the governing statute and its effective date. For a broader map of the three new criminal codes and their renumbering, see how the BNS, BNSS, and BSA replaced the old criminal laws.
Who can claim maintenance under BNSS Section 144
Section 144(1) BNSS lists four classes of persons who may apply for a monthly maintenance allowance before a First Class Magistrate. The provision applies regardless of religion, it is a secular, criminal-procedure remedy available to all persons in India.
1. Wife
A wife who is unable to maintain herself. The statute extends this to a divorced wife who has not remarried, recognising that legal dissolution of marriage does not automatically extinguish financial dependency. The word “wife” under this provision has been interpreted broadly by courts.
2. Legitimate or illegitimate minor child
Any child, whether born within or outside wedlock, who is unable to maintain itself. The term minor means below eighteen years of age.
3. Major child unable to maintain themselves due to physical or mental abnormality
Where a child has crossed eighteen but cannot maintain themselves because of a physical or mental abnormality or injury, a claim lies against the father or, where the father is dead, against the mother. This is a significant protection for adult children with disabilities.
4. Father or mother unable to maintain themselves
Parents who lack the means to maintain themselves may claim against a child who has sufficient means. Both father and mother are covered. The claim by a parent lies against a child (son or daughter) who has sufficient means and neglects or refuses to maintain the parent.
Quick reference table
| Claimant | ✓ Can claim | ✗ Cannot claim |
|---|---|---|
| Wife living apart on just grounds | ✓ | |
| Divorced wife who has not remarried | ✓ | |
| Divorced wife who has remarried | ✗ | |
| Minor child (legitimate or illegitimate) | ✓ | |
| Major child with physical/mental abnormality | ✓ | |
| Major child who is able-bodied and employed | ✗ | |
| Father unable to maintain himself | ✓ | |
| Mother unable to maintain herself | ✓ | |
| Wife living in adultery | ✗ | |
| Wife who refused cohabitation without just cause | ✗ | |
| Live-in partner (no legal marriage) | ✗ (not covered under BNSS 144; may seek relief under DV Act) |
Conditions that must be satisfied
Three conditions must be established before a magistrate can pass a maintenance order:
First: the respondent has sufficient means. “Sufficient means” is not limited to salary slips. Courts have consistently held that earning capacity, including deliberate underemployment or concealment of income, counts as sufficient means. A person who voluntarily gives up a well-paying job to avoid maintenance cannot escape liability on the plea of no income.
Second: neglect or refusal to maintain. The respondent must have neglected or refused to maintain the applicant. Neglect can be inferred from conduct, absence from the household, cutting off financial support, or simply not providing for the dependent’s needs. An express refusal is not required.
Third: the claimant is unable to maintain themselves. The applicant must show that they cannot support themselves from their own resources. A wife with independent income may still obtain maintenance if that income is inadequate for reasonable needs, though the quantum will be adjusted accordingly.
Who cannot claim, and when rights are forfeited
Section 144 BNSS preserves the disentitlement provisions that existed in CrPC Section 125. A wife loses her right to maintenance in three situations:
A magistrate shall not order maintenance if the wife is living in adultery, or if the husband and wife are living separately by mutual consent, or if she refuses to cohabit with her husband without any sufficient reason.
The phrase “sufficient reason” has generated extensive litigation. Courts have consistently held that the following constitute sufficient reason for a wife to live separately:
- The husband has contracted another marriage.
- The husband keeps a mistress or lives with another woman.
- The husband has treated the wife with cruelty.
- The husband has deserted the wife.
A divorced wife forfeits her right once she remarries. The right does not revive upon a second divorce.
How to file: procedure before the magistrate
Maintenance under BNSS Section 144 is filed in a criminal court, specifically before a First Class Magistrate (or a Family Court, where notified, which exercises equivalent jurisdiction). The procedure is governed by Section 145 BNSS.
Step 1: Jurisdiction. The application is filed in the district where the applicant resides, or where the respondent resides, or where the respondent last resided with the applicant. In matrimonial cases, the wife has the choice of forum.
Step 2: Drafting the application. The petition sets out the relationship between the parties, the respondent’s income and means, the applicant’s inability to maintain themselves, and the relief sought. Following Rajnesh v Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324, both parties are now required to file a standardised Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities at the outset. This affidavit covers income, movable and immovable assets, liabilities, and financial obligations. Courts treat non-disclosure or false disclosure seriously, it can result in an adverse inference or contempt.
Step 3: Service of notice. After the application is filed, the court issues notice to the respondent. The sixty-day clock for interim maintenance starts from the date of service of this notice.
Step 4: Interim maintenance. Before the final order, the applicant may seek interim maintenance under Section 144 itself. The magistrate disposes of the interim application within sixty days of service.
Step 5: Evidence and hearing. The parties lead evidence, typically through affidavits, salary slips, bank statements, income-tax returns, and documents relating to the applicant’s needs. Cross-examination follows.
Step 6: Order. The magistrate passes an order specifying the monthly allowance. The order states the date from which it operates, which, per Rajnesh v Neha, is ordinarily the date of the application.
Step 7: Appeals and revision. Orders under Section 144 BNSS are subject to revision by the Sessions Court under Section 438 BNSS (corresponding to Section 397 CrPC).
For a primer on reading and dissecting orders in maintenance proceedings, the guide on how to read and brief an Indian judgment explains the structure of a magistrate’s order and how to identify the ratio.
Interim maintenance and the 60-day rule
Delay in maintenance proceedings is a recognised problem. A dependent spouse or parent filing a petition could wait years before a final order is passed, during which time they have no income. BNSS Section 144 addresses this through interim maintenance.
The magistrate may grant interim maintenance and expenses of proceedings during the pendency of the case. Section 145 BNSS mandates that applications for interim maintenance shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of service of notice on the respondent.
The sixty-day rule is a direction to the court, not a mandatory bar that extinguishes the application if breached, but it gives practitioners a clear benchmark against which to seek expeditious disposal. Where a magistrate fails to act within sixty days without adequate reason, a revision or writ petition on grounds of unexplained delay is maintainable.
Interim maintenance is usually calculated on a rough assessment of the respondent’s income and the applicant’s immediate needs, without a full evidentiary hearing. The final order adjusts or supersedes the interim order, and any shortfall or excess for the overlapping period is accounted for.
Quantum: how courts calculate the amount
There is no statutory ceiling on the maintenance amount under BNSS Section 144. The old Rs. 500 cap that once existed under an earlier version of the CrPC has long since been removed, and BNSS imposes none. The magistrate has broad discretion.
Following the guidelines in Rajnesh v Neha, courts now consider the following factors when fixing the quantum:
Income and earning capacity of the respondent. This includes salary, business income, agricultural income, rental income, and, critically, the capacity to earn even if currently unemployed. Deliberate suppression of income is taken seriously.
Reasonable needs of the claimant. The test is not bare subsistence. Post-separation maintenance should, as far as possible, reflect the standard of living the claimant enjoyed during the marriage or before the dependency arose.
Standard of living during the marriage. A wife accustomed to a certain lifestyle is entitled to maintenance that bears a reasonable relationship to that lifestyle, not merely enough to survive.
Existing liabilities. A respondent who has other dependents (children, parents) or outstanding debts may seek adjustment, though courts scrutinise these claims to prevent artificial loading of liabilities to reduce maintenance.
Age, health, and employability. A younger, able-bodied wife may be expected to seek employment over time. An elderly or infirm parent or spouse gets higher weight on the needs side.
Property and assets. If the claimant owns significant assets or income-generating property, this reduces the maintenance payable.
Children’s custody arrangements. Where the wife has custody of children, the costs of raising the children are factored into the maintenance assessment.
Rajnesh v Neha also addressed the tendency of respondents to understate income. Courts are now directed to look at bank statements, income-tax returns, Form 16, and other financial documents rather than relying solely on the respondent’s own disclosure.
Rajnesh v Neha: the governing guidelines
Rajnesh v Neha, decided by a bench of Justices Indu Malhotra and Subhash Reddy on 4 November 2020, is the single most important judgment on maintenance procedure in the past decade. It is reported at (2021) 2 SCC 324. The Supreme Court framed comprehensive guidelines under Article 136 read with Article 142 of the Constitution, to be followed in all maintenance proceedings across the country.
The guidelines address five key problems:
1. Overlapping jurisdiction. Multiple maintenance proceedings under different statutes, Section 144 BNSS, Section 24/25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, could previously result in a claimant collecting under all of them simultaneously for the same period, or a respondent unknowingly paying double. The Court ruled that courts must harmonise orders across proceedings: maintenance awarded in one proceeding must be taken into account and set off against amounts awarded in another, for the same period.
2. Date from which maintenance runs. The Court held unequivocally that maintenance must be awarded from the date of filing the application, not from the date of the court’s order, nor from the date of notice to the respondent. This is a critical rule for claimants: the longer the case drags, the more arrears accumulate from the filing date.
3. Standardised affidavit. The Court prescribed a uniform Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities to be filed by both parties in all maintenance proceedings, including pending cases at the time. This affidavit must be filed within four weeks of the first date of hearing. The respondent must update the affidavit if circumstances change during the proceedings.
4. Adjudication timeline. The Court directed that interim maintenance applications be decided within four to six months. A specific Miscellaneous Case number must be assigned for tracking.
5. Enforcement. Where orders are not complied with, the Court identified three enforcement pathways: treating the maintenance order as a money decree (enforceable by civil attachment or civil imprisonment), striking out the defense of the non-paying spouse in any divorce or matrimonial proceeding before a civil court, and contempt proceedings.
The Supreme Court later had occasion in 2023 to note that many trial courts were still not following the Rajnesh v Neha guidelines, directing re-circulation of the judgment to all judges and judicial academies. The guidelines remain binding.
Overlap with other maintenance laws
One of the most frequently misunderstood aspects of maintenance practice is that several statutes independently create maintenance obligations, and a claimant may invoke more than one simultaneously. Understanding how these streams interact is essential.
| Statute | Forum | Who can claim | Key feature |
|---|---|---|---|
| BNSS Section 144 | First Class Magistrate / Family Court | Wife, children, parents (all religions) | Secular, criminal remedy; speedy; runs from filing date |
| Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 24 | Civil court / Family Court | Either spouse (interim during matrimonial proceedings) | Pendente lite only; tied to pending HMA proceedings |
| Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 25 | Civil court / Family Court | Either spouse (permanent alimony) | Civil remedy; lump sum or periodic; can be varied |
| Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, Section 18 | Civil court / Family Court | Hindu wife (not divorced) | Civil; personal law obligation; no criminal sanction |
| Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 | Magistrate | Woman in domestic relationship (includes live-in) | Includes monetary relief, not technically “maintenance” |
| Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 | Various | Divorced Muslim wife | Iddat maintenance + reasonable provision; interplay with Section 144 BNSS unresolved in some high courts |
Practical consequences of overlap:
A Hindu wife can simultaneously file: (a) a maintenance application under BNSS Section 144 before a Magistrate, (b) interim maintenance under Section 24 HMA before a Family Court in connection with divorce proceedings, and (c) a claim under Section 18 HAMA in a civil suit. There is no legal bar to doing all three.
However, following Rajnesh v Neha, courts must set off amounts: if the Magistrate awards Rs. 20,000 per month under Section 144 BNSS and the Family Court awards Rs. 15,000 per month under Section 24 HMA for the same period, the wife is not entitled to Rs. 35,000 per month. The court hearing the later matter adjusts the award to avoid double recovery for the same period.
Section 144 BNSS and Section 18 HAMA have been held not to be inconsistent, they operate in different domains (criminal vs civil) and serve different purposes (immediate relief vs personal-law obligation). But the Rajnesh v Neha netting requirement applies to ensure the aggregate is just.
For a deeper look at how courts verify and track case law across overlapping maintenance regimes, see checking whether Indian case law is still good law.
Enforcement when the order is ignored
A maintenance order that goes unpaid is a common problem. Section 147 BNSS provides the enforcement mechanism.
Where a person fails to comply with a maintenance order without sufficient cause, the magistrate may issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines. If the amount cannot be recovered by warrant, the person may be sentenced to imprisonment for a term that may extend to one month, or until payment is made, whichever occurs earlier.
One important limitation: the warrant or proceedings for imprisonment must be commenced within one year of the date on which each installment falls due. An installment that is more than one year overdue cannot be recovered through this criminal mechanism (though the claimant may explore civil remedies for older arrears).
Beyond the Section 147 mechanism, Rajnesh v Neha identified two additional enforcement tools:
Striking the defense in matrimonial proceedings. Where the respondent is party to a pending divorce or matrimonial case and has defaulted on a maintenance order, the civil court may strike out the respondent’s defense or written statement. This is a powerful tool because it effectively renders the respondent unable to contest the matrimonial proceedings.
Contempt of court. Where the maintenance order was passed by a court of competent jurisdiction and the respondent wilfully disobeys it, contempt proceedings are available. The combination of Section 147 enforcement and contempt gives claimants two separate strings to their bow.
Modification of orders. Section 146 BNSS allows either party to seek alteration of a maintenance order on proof of a change in circumstances, for example, if the respondent loses their job, or the wife begins working and earns a significant income, or a child attains majority. The application for alteration goes back to the same magistrate.
How Niyam helps
Maintenance petitions require careful marshalling of financial documents, affidavits, and case law stretching from the Shah Bano judgment (AIR 1985 SC 945) through to Rajnesh v Neha and the post-BNSS decisions now accumulating in High Courts. Niyam researches Indian statutes, case law, and judgments, including its corpus of 72,000+ Indian judgments, and drafts and reviews documents grounded in primary sources, with every answer cited. Whether you need a draft maintenance application, a checklist for the Rajnesh v Neha affidavit, or a research note on how a particular High Court has interpreted “sufficient means”, Niyam can turn that around quickly.
Start for ₹100 and try your first maintenance research query.
Frequently asked questions
Is Section 125 CrPC still valid after 1 July 2024?
No. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) with effect from 1 July 2024. Section 125 CrPC stands replaced by Section 144 BNSS. Proceedings that were pending as on 1 July 2024 continue under the BNSS, but references to Section 125 in orders, revision petitions, and arguments should now be updated to Section 144 BNSS.
Can a Muslim wife claim maintenance under BNSS Section 144?
Yes. Section 144 BNSS is a secular provision applicable to all persons regardless of religion. The Supreme Court affirmed this in Mohd. Ahmed Khan v Shah Bano Begum, AIR 1985 SC 945, holding that Section 125 CrPC (now Section 144 BNSS) applies to Muslim women. The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 was enacted after that judgment and creates a separate regime, but does not bar a claim under BNSS Section 144, though the interplay between the two remains a live question in several High Courts.
What is the maximum maintenance amount under BNSS Section 144?
There is no statutory maximum. The magistrate fixes the amount based on the respondent’s income, earning capacity, and the applicant’s reasonable needs, having regard to the standard of living during the marriage. Earlier CrPC versions had a Rs. 500 ceiling, but that was removed long ago. Modern courts have awarded amounts ranging from a few thousand to several lakhs per month in appropriate cases.
From which date does maintenance start?
Per Rajnesh v Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324, maintenance ordinarily runs from the date of filing the application. The Magistrate may, in special circumstances, direct otherwise, but the default rule is the filing date. This means every month the case is pending, the arrears accumulate from that date, even though payment will only be made after the order is passed.
Can a wife claim maintenance if she is earning?
Yes, but her income will reduce the quantum. The test is whether her income is sufficient to maintain the standard of living she enjoyed during the marriage. If her earnings fall short of that standard, she is entitled to the difference. A wife’s employment does not by itself disentitle her; it goes to quantum.
Can a husband claim maintenance from his wife?
Under BNSS Section 144, maintenance flows from a person with sufficient means to a dependent person. The statute uses “wife” and “husband” but the claimant under this specific provision is the wife, not the husband. A husband cannot claim under Section 144 BNSS. However, under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, either spouse may seek pendente lite maintenance, and a husband who has no independent income can claim interim maintenance from his wife in that forum.
What documents should I gather before filing?
At a minimum: marriage certificate, proof of residence, identity documents, the respondent’s income documents (salary slips, ITR filings, Form 16, bank statements), proof of the applicant’s expenses (rent receipts, school fee receipts, medical bills), and any evidence of cruelty, desertion, or other grounds for living separately. Following Rajnesh v Neha, be prepared to file the standardised Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities.
How long does a maintenance case take?
The statute directs that interim maintenance applications be disposed of within sixty days of service of notice. Final disposal varies widely by court and location, from a few months in Family Courts to several years in busier magistrate courts. The Rajnesh v Neha guidelines direct that interim applications be concluded within four to six months, and practitioners should cite this guideline to push for expeditious hearing.
Can I get maintenance even before the divorce is finalised?
Yes. Interim maintenance under Section 144 BNSS is available during the pendency of the case. There is no requirement that the marriage be already dissolved. Similarly, Section 24 HMA allows interim maintenance during pending divorce proceedings before a civil court. The two remedies can run concurrently, subject to the Rajnesh v Neha set-off principle.
What happens if the respondent hides income?
The Rajnesh v Neha guidelines specifically address income concealment. The court may draw an adverse inference against a respondent who does not file the affidavit of assets or files a manifestly incomplete or false one. Income-tax returns, bank statements, and property documents can be summoned. Courts have also considered lifestyle evidence, such as the size of residence, number of vehicles, children’s school fees, as circumstantial proof of income where documentary evidence is concealed.
Is maintenance under BNSS Section 144 taxable in the hands of the recipient?
Tax treatment is governed by the Income Tax Act, not the BNSS. Maintenance received by a spouse under a court order is generally treated as income in the hands of the recipient and is taxable if it exceeds basic exemption thresholds. The tax position can be more nuanced where maintenance is received as a lump sum. Consult a tax adviser for case-specific advice. The Income Tax Act 2025 changes from April 2026 guide covers the revised slab structure applicable to such income.
Can parents claim maintenance from a daughter as well as a son?
Yes. BNSS Section 144 refers to a “father or mother unable to maintain themselves” claiming against a person with sufficient means. The provision does not restrict the respondent to sons. A daughter with sufficient means and who neglects or refuses to maintain her parents is equally liable. The courts have confirmed that daughters are covered.
What is the “just grounds” exception for a wife living separately?
A wife who refuses to live with her husband ordinarily loses maintenance, unless she can show “sufficient reason” for the refusal. Courts have held that the following constitute sufficient reason: cruelty by the husband, the husband’s second marriage, the husband living with another woman, the husband’s refusal to maintain the wife at her marital home, and persistent harassment. The wife bears the initial burden of establishing the ground; the husband may then rebut it.
How does Section 144 BNSS interact with the Domestic Violence Act?
The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) allows a woman in a domestic relationship, including a live-in partner, to claim monetary relief as part of protection orders before a Magistrate. This monetary relief is distinct from “maintenance” in the technical sense but serves a similar economic function. Importantly, the DV Act covers live-in partners, which BNSS Section 144 does not. A woman may run both proceedings simultaneously; the Rajnesh v Neha set-off principle applies to prevent double recovery.
Can an illegitimate child claim against the father?
Yes. BNSS Section 144(1)(b) explicitly covers legitimate or illegitimate minor children. An illegitimate minor child who cannot maintain itself can claim maintenance from the father, provided the father has sufficient means and neglects or refuses to maintain the child. Paternity may need to be established, but the provision itself does not exclude illegitimate children.
What is the procedure for enforcement if the father dies?
Where the respondent dies during the pendency of or after a maintenance order, the order becomes a claim against the estate. Heirs and legal representatives of the deceased respondent become liable to satisfy arrears from the estate. Prospective maintenance ceases, but accumulated arrears are recoverable as a debt from the estate.
Can maintenance be claimed for a period before the filing of the application?
Section 144 BNSS does not provide for maintenance for the period prior to filing the application. Rajnesh v Neha confirmed that the earliest a claimant can recover from is the date of the application. A claimant who delays in filing loses the arrears for the pre-filing period.
What if the wife starts living with another man without marrying him?
If a wife is living in adultery, she is disentitled to maintenance under Section 144 BNSS. A live-in relationship that amounts to adultery, where the wife is involved with a man other than her husband, falls within this disentitlement. The respondent must prove the adultery; the standard of proof in these criminal proceedings is preponderance of evidence, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Can a maintenance order be challenged in the High Court?
An order under Section 144 BNSS may be challenged by way of revision before the Sessions Court under Section 438 BNSS. If the Sessions Court’s revision order is also challenged, the High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS (inherent powers) or a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is available. The High Court does not ordinarily re-appreciate facts but will interfere on jurisdictional errors or manifest illegality.
Is the Affidavit of Assets mandatory in all maintenance cases?
Yes. Following Rajnesh v Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324, the Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities is mandatory in all maintenance proceedings, including cases that were pending as of November 2020 when the judgment was delivered. The Supreme Court has subsequently reminded courts that non-compliance with this requirement undermines the very purpose of the guidelines. Courts are directed to insist on the affidavit at the first date of hearing itself.
How does BNSS Section 144 differ from BNSS Section 163?
Section 144 BNSS deals with maintenance of wives, children, and parents, a family-law protection. Section 163 BNSS deals with the power of a District Magistrate to issue prohibitory orders in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger, the “Section 144” of public-order law under the old CrPC. The two have nothing to do with each other beyond the historical accident that they inherited their names from different provisions of the same old code.
Key takeaways
- BNSS Section 144 = maintenance of wives, children, and parents; it is the successor to CrPC Section 125, in force from 1 July 2024.
- The old “Section 144 CrPC” (prohibitory orders) is now Section 163 BNSS, a different provision entirely.
- Four classes of claimants: wife (including non-remarried divorced wife), legitimate or illegitimate minor child, major child with physical or mental abnormality, and parents unable to maintain themselves.
- Three conditions: respondent has sufficient means, neglect or refusal to maintain, claimant cannot maintain themselves.
- A wife forfeits maintenance if living in adultery, or if she refuses cohabitation without sufficient reason, or if the parties live apart by mutual consent.
- Rajnesh v Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 is the governing authority: maintenance runs from the date of application; both parties must file standardised affidavits of assets; overlapping awards across different statutes must be set off.
- The Magistrate must dispose of interim maintenance applications within sixty days of service of notice.
- There is no cap on the amount; quantum depends on the respondent’s income, the claimant’s needs, and the standard of living during the marriage.
- Enforcement under Section 147 BNSS: warrant, and imprisonment up to one month; must be pursued within one year of each installment falling due.
- Overlap with HMA, HAMA, and DV Act is common; concurrent proceedings are permissible but courts must harmonise and set off to prevent double recovery.
- For any pending CrPC Section 125 proceeding filed before 1 July 2024, the proceeding continues under BNSS but the new procedural rules (including Rajnesh v Neha affidavit requirements) apply.
Start for ₹100, research your next maintenance matter on Niyam, grounded in 72,000+ Indian judgments and primary statutory sources.