This article has been written by Jenia Begam from LJD Law College, University of Calcutta

Table of Contents

Introduction

The court has the power to require a husband to provide separate monthly maintenance to a wife who is unable to support herself under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, the husband cannot live apart from his wife or commit adultery without a valid reason, nor may he have insufficient funds to support her when they part ways. If the husband and wife have permission to live apart, the wife will not be entitled for maintenance. Both the husband’s ability to pay maintenance and the wife’s incapacity to support herself financially after their divorce must be proven by the court. Furthermore, by ordering interim maintenance while a court case is ongoing, the magistrate has the authority to force the husband to provide monthly payments. An application for maintenance may be made in any area where the payee lives, the wife lives, or the applicant last lived with the mother, wife, or child born out of wedlock.

The rejection of maintenance by parents, children, and spouses who are unable to sustain themselves is forbidden under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Spouses may, nonetheless, disagree with the judgement of the lower court and may file a Section 397 of the CrPC revision application. Growing understanding and better views from the judiciary have expanded the scope of applications for revision.

Understanding Section 125 of CrPC^[1]

Who can claim maintenance ?

Wife – According to Section 125(l) (a)^[2] of the Code, a Magistrate of the first class can order a person with sufficient means to provide a monthly maintenance allowance for his wife if he neglects or refuses to maintain her, and she is unable to support herself. The Magistrate sets the monthly rate, and the money is sent in accordance with that amount. Divorced women who haven’t been married again are included in the definition of “wife,” and their age isn’t a barrier. The marriage must be governed by the spouses’ respective personal laws in order for Section 125 to be relevant. If a lawful marriage is in issue, the petitioner needs to provide proof of the marriage. A union made official by the exchange of garlands has been held invalid. Maintenance payment is not given to every neglected wife, but only to those who are unable to support themselves. This does not imply complete poverty, begging, or wearing rags. In compliance with his civil responsibilities, the husband’s desire to pay maintenance does not amount to neglect or refusal. Under Section 125 of the Code, it is deemed neglect or refusal if the husband’s contribution is not enough to cover the wife’s basic needs.

Child – According to Section 125(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a Magistrate of the first class may order a person with sufficient means to provide a monthly allowance for the child’s maintenance if the person neglects or refuses to care for their minor child, married or not, because of physical or mental abnormalities or injury. The Magistrate may get payment for the allowance. If the spouse does not have enough money, the magistrate may, however, order the father of a young girl to provide the allowance until the kid reaches adulthood.

Even with the implementation of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, a Muslim girl in her minor years is entitled to support from her father. The Indian Majority Act, 1875, defines “child” ^[3]as a male or female individual who has not attained full age and is unable to assert legal claims or engage into contracts. This definition is not included in the Code.

Father & Mother – According to the Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 125(l)(d), a Magistrate of the first class may impose a monthly maintenance order on an individual who neglects or refuses to provide for their parents. Regardless of her marital status, the daughter bears the responsibility of providing for her parents. “Mother” includes “adoptive mothers,” while “father” includes “adoptive fathers.” If the childless stepmother is a widow or her husband is unable to provide for her, she may be entitled to maintenance from her stepson. Depending on the situation, parents may file a lawsuit against one or more of them.

Essential Conditions

Sufficient means to maintain: In accordance with Code of Criminal Procedure Section 125(1), the individual requesting maintenance must have adequate resources to support the person or people making the claim.The amount of maintenance must be fixed by proving the payer’s ability to pay.
Neglect to maintain: In accordance with Section 125(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the party requesting maintenance must have failed to provide it to the person or people who are legally entitled to it.
The claimant needs to be unable of supporting themselves: Since the primary goal of Section 125 of the Code is to avoid vagrancy, maintenance payments should only be required for those who are unable to maintain themselves.

In order for the wife’s plea for maintenance to be maintainable, she must first prove that she cannot support herself. When a woman is unable to support herself, she may be entitled to maintenance under Section 125(1)(a) of the Code. The upkeep must be estimated taking into account the individual’s level of life. It is not necessary for the wife to expressly request assistance in maintaining herself.

Application and Scope of Section 125 CrPC

After a divorce, the wife, kids, and parents are entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). If the wife is unable to support herself, the court may order the husband to pay maintenance on a monthly basis. The exceptions to the norm, however, do apply if the woman cannot be living in adultery, if she cannot live apart from her husband for an extended length of time, or if the husband cannot support his ex-wife after leaving the marriage.

While a court case is underway, magistrates may order the spouse to make monthly payments under Section 125, a practise known as intermediate maintenance. The magistrate has the authority to alter the maintenance amount if they consider that it has changed.

A man must provide for his spouse, children, parents, immediate relatives, and other dependents when they are unable to sustain themselves. Maintenance awards are a sign of social justice.

All Indian groups are subject to the CrPC restrictions, irrespective of their caste, creed, or religion. Under some personal laws, people of various religions may seek maintenance. Distinct from a husband’s legal obligation, the provision in Chapter IX of the CrPC attempts to shield parents, small children, and neglected spouses from ruin and starvation.

Scope of Revision

The amount of support that spouses get in court proceedings is determined under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The spouse has the option to seek for revision procedures in higher courts if he is unhappy with the court’s decision. Higher courts do, however, have restricted jurisdiction since they have to take certain factors into account before proceeding. The Code of Criminal Procedure under Section 397 grants the authority to revise, while Section 125 prohibits its maintenance. The case’s merits determine the husband’s eligibility to petition for revision.

The following circumstances must be met in order to request revision under Section 125 CrPC:

Error of Law or Fact: If the maintenance order contains a legal or factual error, revision may be requested.
New Evidence: Revision may be requested if information has emerged that was not known at the time the maintenance order was issued.
Injustice or Unfairness: Revision may be requested if the maintenance order is unjust or unfair. Nonetheless, there are restrictions on the revision procedure under Section 125 CrPC.

It cannot be utilized as a means of reopening the case or reevaluating the reliability of the witnesses because it is not an appeal. The court only seldom uses its discretionary power of revision. Its main purposes are to prevent injustices or to rectify obvious mistakes. The subsequent part will examine the seminal rulings concerning section 125 CrPC and their influence on the comprehension and implementation of the clause.

Landmark Judgements

“Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum(1985)”^[4],- In this case, the Supreme Court decided that a Muslim woman who has divorced her husband is entitled to support from him until she gets married again. The court disregarded the claim that maintenance is only due during the iddat period by referencing passages from the Quran. Since the postponed Mahr (dower) was a consideration for the marriage, the court likewise rejected the claim that it is a payment due upon divorce. The Code of Criminal Procedure’s Section 125, a social justice measure, is unaffected by religion, the court decided. The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 was passed as a result of this verdict, regulating the rights of divorced Muslim women and enabling them to request support from the State Wakf Board.
Masud Ahmed v. the State of Bihar , (2016 )^[5] – In this case, the petitioner lodged a complaint against a maintenance case in which the court granted support of Rs. 3,000/-monthly to the petitioner’s ex-wife and Rs. 2,000/-monthly to the petitioner’s and the opposing party’s children born out of marriage. According to Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner’s attorney said that the wife, a teacher who makes enough money to support herself, was ineligible for the application. The petitioner got into a second marriage only six months after delivering talaq to the other party, and the court also noticed that the other party, a contractual teacher, needs financial assistance.
Rajnesh v. Neha ( 2020)^[6] – In this case , the Family Court ordered appellant Rajnesh to provide support to Neha and their child. Rajnesh attempted to contest this ruling at the Bombay High Court but was unsuccessful. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in its most recent ruling, has established several rules that must be followed immediately in all maintenance-related matters in all Indian courts. Additionally, it is decided in this judgement that the husband is exempt from paying maintenance in any of the processes or cases that the wife files under various maintenance statutes.payment, interim maintenance payment, maintenance quantum determination, award date, and enforcement of maintenance orders.

Conclusion

The purpose of Section 125 of the CrPC is to protect the rights of individuals with dependents who don’t have enough money to support themselves and live in harsher circumstances. Wives, kids, and parents have historically been in charge of this area. However, in order to guarantee that justice is done to all parties, courts must evaluate cases individually owing to social considerations. It is important to take evolving social dynamics and facts into account. High Court rulings have varied somewhat from the Supreme Court’s expansive and accommodating views. Unless absolutely necessary, the courts need to make their own decisions, taking local cultural and socioeconomic considerations into account.