Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 · Chapter IX: Order for Maintenance of Wives, Children and Parents
Section 125: Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to matters and proceedings from before that date, as the repealing law provides.
In plain words
If a person with sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain their wife who cannot maintain herself, their minor child (legitimate or not) who cannot maintain itself, their adult child (other than a married daughter) unable to maintain itself due to physical or mental abnormality or injury, or their parent who cannot maintain themselves, a first class Magistrate can order a monthly maintenance allowance.
- "Wife" includes a divorced woman who has not remarried.
- The Magistrate can order interim maintenance and expenses during the case, ideally decided within sixty days of notice.
- For each breach, the amount can be recovered like a fine and the person jailed for up to one month per unpaid month, if recovery is sought within one year.
- If the husband offers to maintain his wife only if she lives with him, the Magistrate can still order maintenance where she has just grounds, such as his remarriage or keeping a mistress.
- A wife is not entitled if she lives in adultery, refuses without sufficient reason to live with her husband, or they live apart by mutual consent.
A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.
Read the in-depth explanation, with key Supreme Court rulings ↓
Official text
(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
(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 1 * * * 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: [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,—
(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) 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: 1. Certain words omitted by Act 50 of 2001, s. 2 (w.e.f. 24-9-2001). 2. Ins. by s. 2, ibid. (w.e.f. 24-9-2001). 3. Subs. by s. 2, ibid., for sub-section (2) (w.e.f. 24-9-2001). 4. Subs. by s. 2, ibid., for —allowance‖ (w.e.f. 24-9-2001)
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, as the case may be,] 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 in living in adultery, or that without sufficient reason she refuses to live with her husband, or that they are living separately by mutual consent.
Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.
Understanding this section
Section 125 gives a quick, inexpensive remedy for maintenance to a wife, children and parents who cannot maintain themselves, against a person with sufficient means who neglects or refuses to maintain them. It is a measure of social justice meant to prevent vagrancy and destitution, and it applies to people of every religion.
Who can claim
- A wife unable to maintain herself, including a divorced wife who has not remarried.
- A minor child, legitimate or illegitimate, married or not, unable to maintain itself.
- An adult child (other than a married daughter) unable to maintain itself because of physical or mental abnormality or injury.
- A father or mother unable to maintain themselves.
Conditions
The person against whom the claim is made must have sufficient means, and must have neglected or refused to maintain the claimant. A wife loses the right if she lives in adultery, refuses without sufficient reason to live with her husband, or they live separately by mutual consent (sub-section (4)).
Unable to maintain herself
A wife's ability to maintain herself means the ability to maintain the standard of living she enjoyed in the matrimonial home, not mere survival. That she earns something, or has some property, does not automatically defeat her claim.
Muslim women
The Supreme Court has held that section 125 applies to all married women, including Muslim women, and that a divorced Muslim woman can claim maintenance under it even after the iddat period, so long as she does not remarry. The remedy under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 is additional, not exclusive.
Interim maintenance and procedure
The Magistrate can order interim maintenance during the proceedings, ideally within sixty days. To prevent delay and overlapping claims under different laws, the Supreme Court has required parties to file affidavits disclosing their assets and liabilities, and has laid down criteria for fixing the amount and the date from which it is payable.
Key Supreme Court rulings
Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai 2007 INSC 1190
Section 125 is a measure of social justice specially enacted to protect women, children and parents unable to maintain themselves, falling within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39; explained the meaning of unable to maintain herself.
Rajnesh v. Neha 2020 INSC 631
Issued guidelines under Article 142 on overlapping maintenance jurisdictions, interim maintenance, criteria for quantum, the date from which maintenance is payable, and enforcement, including affidavits of disclosure of assets and liabilities.
Mohd. Abdul Samad v. The State of Telangana 2024 INSC 506
Section 125 applies to all married women, including Muslim married women, and divorced Muslim women can claim under it in addition to their remedies under the 1986 Act.
Shabana Bano v. Imran Khan 2009 INSC 1284
A divorced Muslim woman is entitled to claim maintenance under section 125 even after the expiry of the iddat period, as long as she does not remarry.
Common mistakes
- Treating any income of the wife as a bar to maintenance.
- Saying section 125 does not apply to Muslim women.
- Forgetting the grounds in sub-section (4) that disentitle a wife.
Read with: Section 127 CrPC, Section 128 CrPC, Section 144 BNSS
Prepared with AI assistance as a study aid. Every ruling listed was checked against the Supreme Court's own judgments on this site, and quoted words appear in those judgments; linked names open the full judgment. Read the judgments themselves before relying on them. Not legal advice.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 125
-
Rousanara Begum v. S.K. Salahuddin @ SK Salauddin & Anr.
Issue arose whether goods given to a daughter at the time of her marriage by her father, or to the bridegroom, can be by application of law, returned to the daughter-appellant given that their marriage had ended in…
-
& Others v. Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Ltd. Etc.
The present matter raised important questions of law relating to interpretation and interplay between Section 144C and Section 153(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The question for consideration was on the applicability…
-
Pradeep Bhardwaj v. Priya
Issue arose as regards the correctness of the judgment passed by the High Court dismissing the matrimonial appeal filed by the appellant-husband refusing to grant divorce to the parties.
-
Rakhi Sadhukhan v. Raja Sadhukhan
Whether the quantum of permanent alimony of Rs.20,000/- per month, subject to a 5% increase every three years, fixed by the High Court ought to be enhanced.
-
Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi v. Vidhi Rawal
Whether the High Court can invoke its inherent jurisdiction u/s.482, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 or s.528, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to quash proceedings initiated u/s.12, Protection of Women from…
-
Parminder Singh v. Honey Goyal and Others
Matter pertains to the enhancement of the amount of compensation granted to the appellant, aged 21 years, a veterinary student and State Level player in Volleyball who sufferred quadriplegia-paralysis of all four limbs…
-
Sukhdev Singh v. Sukhbir Kaur
Whether a spouse of a marriage declared as void under s.11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is entitled to claim permanent alimony and maintenance under u/s.25 of the Act; whether in a petition filed seeking a…
-
Shahjahan v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court upholding the order passed by family court not awarding any maintenance to the appellant-wife.
-
Sau. Jiya v. Kuldeep
Issue arose as regards permanent alimony to be given by respondent-husband to appellant-wife, post-divorce.
-
Smt. N. Usha Rani and Anr. v. Moodudula Srinivas
Whether a woman is entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC from her second husband while her first marriage is allegedly legally subsisting.
-
Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph
Whether the presumption of legitimacy, if not displaced, determines paternity in law; whether the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the Original Suit and whether the Family Court was entitled to reopen the…
-
Rina Kumari @ Rina Devi @ Reena v. Dinesh Kumar Mahto @ Dinesh Kumar Mahato and Another
Will a husband, who secures a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, stand absolved of paying maintenance to his wife by virtue of Section 125(4), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, if his wife refuses to abide by…
- Manu v. Vibhor Tomar
- Harish Chandra Prasad v. Geeta Devi and Ors
- Amrish Kumar Mishra & Ors v. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr
- Mr. Kunwer Fahmed Alam Ariyana v. Ms. Mamtesh Alam @Mamtesh
- Vishambhar v. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Ors
-
Akanksha Arora v. Tanay Maben
Whether the High Court can convert the petition u/s.482 CrPC into a revision u/s.397 CrPC and decide it as per law; Whether s.397 CrPC can affect the amplitude of the inherent powers of the High Court u/s. 482 CrPC.
- Nazia Habeeb v. Mohd Najam Khan
- Keshav Dev v. Kamlesh & Anr
- Naresh v. Seema
- Sunita Choudhary v. Sanjeev Kumar Jham
- Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Jham @ Suraj Jham v. Smt. Sunita Choudhary @ Kangna Jham
- Ajay v. State & Anr
- Furkan v. The State NCT of Delhi
- Sunita & Anr v. Yogesh Kumar
- Priyanka Dhawan v. Navdeep Dhawan
- Chander Chhabra & Anr v. Jyoti Chhabra
-
Parveen Kumar v. The State of Himachal Pradesh
Issue arose, if the High Court was justified in convicting and sentencing the husband u/ss. 498A and 306 IPC for subjecting the victim-wife to cruelty and forcing her to commit suicide.
- Manish Mahto v. Suman & Anr
- Manish v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr
- Vivek Jatin Chaudhary v. Deepti Ture
- Smt Shobha & Anr v. Shri Jai Sachdeva @ Jai Dayal
- Shukla Chakraborty v. Snehanshu Das Pandit
- Pushpa v. Yogender Kumar Dabas
- Siddharth Talwar & Anr v. Sarika Talwar
- Aseem Khanna v. Akanksha Dua
- Rajesh Kumar v. Baby Roshni Minor Through Mother Legal Guardian Kanak Lata Bar & Anr
-
S. Vijikumari v. Mowneshwarachari C
Respondent sought refund of the entire maintenance amount which was paid to the appellant (wife of respondent).
- Amit Chandi v. Aarti Chandi @ Aarti Khanna
- Sh. Sudhanshu Jaggi & Ors v. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr
- Meena Devi v. Vijay Kumar
- Geeta Wahal v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr
-
Union of India v. Bahareh Bakshi
Issue arose as regards to the presence of the estranged husband, if mandatory to process an application by the wife-foreign spouse of a citizen of India for overseas Citizen of India Card, u/s.7-A of the Citizenship…
- Saanvi Malu v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr
- Satish Kumar Dahiya v. Smt Shivani Dahiya & Anr
- Kunal Seth & Ors v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr
- Om Parkash Mehta v. Smt Veena Mehta
- Naresh Kumar v. Babita & Ors
- Praveen Mohammad v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi
- Kuldeep Singh Anand v. Raman Preet Kaur & Anr
- Sh. Gautam Kant Nimaan v. N & Anr
- Sh. Gautam Kant Nimaan v. Master N & Anr
- Anju Jain v. Parveen Jain
- Parvin Kumar Jain v. Anju Jain
- Harjeev Chawla & Ors v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr
- Ganga Ram Makhija @ Gulab v. Jyoti Makhija
- Nitish Anand v. Garima Maggo & Anr
- Commissioner of Police and Anr v. Ravina Yadav and Anr
- Mukesh Kumar v. Neelam
-
Mohd. Abdul Samad v. The State of Telangana & Anr.
(i) Whether section 125 CrPC applies to all married women including Muslim married women; (ii) Whether section 125 CrPC applies to all non-Muslim divorced women; (iii) Whether section 125 of the CrPC applies to all such…
-
Vikas Kanaujia v. Sarita
Whether the present appeal falls under the criteria of ‘irretrievable breakdown of marriage,’ warranting the Supreme Court to exercises its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice.
- Yogesh Kumar Sharma v. Shobha Sharma & Ors
- Jitin Mittal & Ors v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr
- Gurpreet Singh & Ors v. Protection Officer & Anr
- Sahidul Haque and Ors v. State (N.C.T. of Delhi) and Anr
- Preeti Singh and Anr v. Gopal Singh
- Deepak @ Faizal & Ors v. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr
- Pankaj Gupta & Ors v. State Govt of NCT Delhi Through Concerned Sho P.S. Welcome & Anr
- Mohd Shueb v. Fayza Nisar & Anr
-
Trisha Singh v. Anurag Kumar
Parties arrived at an amicable settlement for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent. However, the wife resiled from the settlement agreement. Exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to…
- Ruchika Gupta v. Puneet Gupta
- Sh Ashutosh Garg & Ors v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr
- Dharmender Singh Bisht v. Babita Bisht
- Manju Yadav @ Richa Yadav v. Rajesh Yadav & Anr
- Sandeep Rajak & Ors v. State Sho Through Dcp Ps Madhu Vihar & Anr
- Mamta v. Dr. Alok Kumar Tiwari
- Dr. Alok Kumar Tiwari v. Smt. Mamta
- Mr. Shah Ali Khan and Others v. The State (Through Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Another
- Bhushan Rameshchandra Dobhal & Ors v. The State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr
- Himanshu & Ors v. State NCT of Delhi and Anr
- Sh. Avneshwar Singh v. Smt.Monika
- Vikas Goyal & Anr v. State NCT of Delhi & Anr
- Sh Amit Paul Singh & Anr v. The State & Anr
- Subhash Chand v. Deepa
- Sachin Singh v. Master Avyan Through His Mother Nimisha Kumar
- Juned Khan and Ors v. Govt of NCT of Delhi and Another
- Praveen Bhargava v. Poonam Bhargava
- Bharat Chander Uprati & Ors v. The State Govt.Of NCT of Delhi and Anr
- Vishal v. Sonia
- Sonia v. Vishal
- Sudhir Khare & Ors v. The State NCT of Delhi & Anr
- Balraj Yadav & Ors v. The State ( NCT of Delhi) Through Sho of Police Station Rajourti Garden Delhi & Anr
- Smt Meenu Gupta v. Shri Sandeep Kumar Jain
- Avdhesh Kumar Singh and Ors v. The State NCT of Delhi & Anr
- Yogesh @ Sonu & Ors v. State & Anr
- Neeraj Kumar Tripathi v. State NCT of Delhi and Anr
- Parijat Saurabh v. Kavita Srivastava
- Maheshwari Devi v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors
- Sonu & Ors v. State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr