Section 125 CrPC is the principal secular provision in Indian law that empowers a Magistrate of the first class to order a person with sufficient means to pay monthly maintenance to a wife, children, or parents who are unable to maintain themselves. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 125 applies to persons of all religions and is now contained in Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Legal definition
Section 125(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides:
Section 125(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 as such Magistrate thinks fit and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct.
The Explanation to Section 125(1) clarifies that "wife" includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried. The original statutory ceiling of Rs. 500 per month was removed by amendment, and Magistrates now have unlimited discretion on quantum.
New law equivalent: Under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), Section 144 substantially reproduces Section 125 CrPC. A notable enhancement is the mandate that interim maintenance should be decided, as far as possible, within 60 days from the date of service of notice on the respondent.
How courts have interpreted this term
Rajnesh v. Neha [(2021) 2 SCC 324]
The Supreme Court, through Justice Indu Malhotra, laid down comprehensive guidelines addressing overlapping jurisdictions, quantum criteria, date of award, and enforcement of maintenance orders. The Court prescribed a mandatory Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities to be filed by both parties. It held that maintenance must be awarded from the date of filing the application, not from the date of the order. Critically, where maintenance is claimed under multiple statutes simultaneously — Section 125 CrPC, Section 18 HAMA, Section 24 HMA, and the DV Act — amounts awarded under one must be adjusted against the other to prevent double recovery.
Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan [(2015) 5 SCC 705]
The Supreme Court confirmed that Section 125 CrPC is a secular provision that applies to women of all religions, including divorced Muslim women who have not remarried. The Court held that the quantum must reflect the husband's actual income and status and must enable the wife to live with dignity.
Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai [(2008) 2 SCC 316]
The Court held that the object of Section 125 CrPC is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. The provision is a measure of social justice, and the right to maintenance is not defeated by the husband's claim of insufficient means — all sources of income, both disclosed and undisclosed, must be considered.
Why this matters
Section 125 CrPC occupies a unique position in Indian family law as the only truly secular maintenance provision. Unlike maintenance under the Hindu Marriage Act, Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, or Muslim personal law, Section 125 applies uniformly to persons of all religions. This makes it the default forum for maintenance claims, particularly for Muslim women after divorce and for interfaith couples.
The practical significance of the Rajnesh v. Neha guidelines cannot be overstated. Before 2020, there was no uniformity in how courts determined maintenance quantum, from which date maintenance should run, or how overlapping proceedings under multiple statutes should be reconciled. The mandatory disclosure affidavit has made it significantly harder for respondents to conceal income. The direction that maintenance runs from the date of filing — not the date of order — addresses the injustice of applicants waiting years for resolution.
For practitioners, the key tactical consideration is forum selection. Section 125 proceedings are before a Magistrate, are summary in nature, and are generally faster than proceedings before a Family Court under the HMA or DV Act. However, the amounts awarded tend to be lower. Filing under multiple statutes does not yield cumulative recovery after Rajnesh, but parallel proceedings may provide faster interim relief and better enforcement options.
Related terms
Broader concepts:
Related provisions:
Related proceedings:
Frequently asked questions
Does Section 125 CrPC apply to Muslim women?
Yes. The Supreme Court in Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan (2015) confirmed that Section 125 CrPC is a secular provision available to women of all religions. A divorced Muslim woman who has not remarried can claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC if she is unable to maintain herself, regardless of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.
From what date is maintenance awarded under Section 125?
Following the Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) guidelines, maintenance under Section 125 CrPC must be awarded from the date of filing the application, not from the date of the order. This ensures that applicants are not penalised for delays in adjudication.
Can parents claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC?
Yes. Section 125(1)(d) CrPC (Section 144 BNSS) entitles a father or mother who is unable to maintain himself or herself to claim maintenance from a son or daughter with sufficient means. The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 provides an additional and more comprehensive remedy for elderly parents.
What happens if the husband fails to pay court-ordered maintenance?
Under Section 125(3) CrPC (Section 144 BNSS), if the respondent fails to comply without sufficient cause, the Magistrate may issue a warrant for levying the amount due as a fine and may also sentence the defaulter to imprisonment for up to one month for each instance of default. This gives maintenance orders the force of criminal enforcement.
This entry is part of the Veritect Indian Legal Glossary, a comprehensive reference of Indian legal terminology grounded in statutory text and judicial interpretation.
Last updated: 2026-03-27. Veritect provides this content for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.