Important Supreme Court Judgments on Maintenance under Section 144 BNSS and Section 125 CrPC

Rajnesh v. Neha: Nationwide Guidelines for Maintenance Proceedings

The Supreme Court issued comprehensive guidelines to bring uniformity to maintenance proceedings arising under different statutes. The Court dealt with overlapping maintenance jurisdictions, interim maintenance, determination of quantum, the date from which maintenance should operate, and enforcement of maintenance orders.

A particularly important direction requires parties in maintenance proceedings to file affidavits disclosing their assets and liabilities in the formats prescribed by the judgment. The applicant ordinarily files the maintenance application with the disclosure affidavit, and the respondent is required to file a reply together with a disclosure affidavit within the time indicated by the Court.

The Supreme Court also directed that maintenance should ordinarily be awarded from the date of the maintenance application, rather than leaving entitlement dependent upon delays in final disposal.

Official Supreme Court judgment - Rajnesh v. Neha

Divorced Muslim Woman Can Invoke the Secular Maintenance Remedy

In 2024, the Supreme Court clarified that the secular maintenance remedy under Section 125 CrPC is available to Muslim women as well. The Court held that Section 125 applies to married Muslim women and that a divorced Muslim woman is not shut out merely because remedies also exist under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.

The decision is significant for the present BNSS regime because Section 144 continues the general maintenance remedy for wives, including divorced women who have not remarried. The availability and adjustment of remedies under other statutes must be addressed in accordance with the applicable law so that impermissible double recovery is avoided.

Official Supreme Court judgment - Mohd. Abdul Samad v. State of Telangana

Married Daughter Can Be Liable to Maintain Her Parents

The Supreme Court held that a father may maintain a claim under the maintenance provision against his married daughter. The statutory duty is not confined to sons. A parent must satisfy the statutory conditions, including inability to maintain himself or herself, while the person against whom maintenance is claimed must have sufficient means.

The principle continues to be relevant under Section 144(1)(d) BNSS, which refers to a person's father or mother and does not confine liability to a male child.

When a Stepmother May Claim Maintenance

The Supreme Court held that the expression "mother" does not ordinarily include a stepmother who has her natural-born children capable of maintaining her. It nevertheless recognised that a childless stepmother may, in appropriate circumstances, claim maintenance from a stepson where the conditions identified by the Court are satisfied, including inability of her husband, if living, to maintain her.

Maintenance Provision Is a Measure of Social Justice

The Supreme Court described Section 125 CrPC as a measure of social justice intended to protect women and other dependants from destitution. The provision is to be interpreted in light of its remedial and welfare purpose rather than through an unduly technical approach that would defeat the protection Parliament intended to provide.

Maintenance Proceedings Are Summary and Predominantly Civil in Nature

The Supreme Court explained that proceedings under Chapter IX CrPC, though administered through the criminal procedural framework, are not criminal proceedings in the strict sense and are essentially concerned with enforcement of a civil obligation of maintenance.

The Court reiterated that proceedings under Section 125 CrPC are summary in character and provide a speedy statutory remedy. An order in such proceedings does not finally determine all civil rights and status between the parties.

Standard of Proof of Marriage in Maintenance Proceedings

Because maintenance proceedings are summary, the standard for establishing marriage is not identical to the strict standard applied in a criminal prosecution for bigamy. Where evidence shows that parties lived together as husband and wife and the Court is prima facie satisfied about the marriage, a presumption may arise, subject to rebuttal.

The Court emphasised the need for a broad, purposive approach in maintenance jurisprudence and discussed relationships where parties had lived together as spouses for a substantial period. The decision should, however, be read with later Supreme Court authority dealing with the statutory meaning of "wife" and the facts of the particular relationship.

The Supreme Court recognised the evidentiary presumption that may arise from long cohabitation. A long-standing relationship cannot automatically be treated as a casual arrangement merely because formal proof of every marital rite is unavailable.

Woman Not Lawfully Married: General Rule and Its Qualification

The Supreme Court held, on the statutory language then governing Section 125 CrPC, that a woman whose marriage was not legally valid could not automatically be brought within the expression "wife" merely through equitable considerations.

This proposition must be read together with later decisions such as Badshah, where the Court applied a purposive approach when the man had concealed his existing marriage and had deceived the woman into the subsequent marriage.

Second Wife Deceived About Subsisting First Marriage

Where a man concealed his subsisting first marriage and induced another woman to marry him, the Supreme Court refused to allow him to take advantage of his own wrong to defeat her maintenance claim. The Court distinguished cases in which the woman entered the relationship with knowledge of the earlier subsisting marriage.

Children Born from Void, Bigamous or Irregular Marriages

The Supreme Court recognised the child's independent entitlement to maintenance notwithstanding invalidity of the parents' marriage. Section 144 BNSS expressly covers a person's legitimate or illegitimate child within the statutory conditions laid down in the section.

In the context of Muslim personal law, the Court considered an irregular marriage and held that the wife and children in the circumstances before it could claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The decision remains relevant to the historical development of the secular maintenance remedy.

An Earning Wife Is Not Automatically Disqualified from Maintenance

The fact that a wife earns some income does not by itself defeat a maintenance claim. The relevant question is whether her income is sufficient for her to maintain herself in the circumstances contemplated by the maintenance law. The Court considers the financial material placed on record and the overall circumstances of the parties.

Danial Latifi and the Rights of a Divorced Muslim Woman

The Constitution Bench upheld the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 and interpreted the husband's obligation to make a reasonable and fair provision for the future of the divorced wife. The provision must be made within the iddat period but is not confined in its benefit to that period.

The later decision in Mohd. Abdul Samad v. State of Telangana clarified that the secular Section 125 CrPC remedy is not excluded for a divorced Muslim woman merely because the 1986 Act also provides a remedy.

Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC Does Not Bar a Claim under HAMA

An order of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, whether by compromise or otherwise, does not by itself extinguish an independent statutory remedy available to a wife under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. The two remedies operate in different legal settings, subject to appropriate adjustment where required.