Maintenance is one of the most frequently litigated issues in family law. A wife, children and parents unable to maintain themselves can claim maintenance under Section 144 of the BNSS (earlier Section 125 CrPC), and claims can also be made under personal laws such as the Hindu Marriage Act and the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, and under the Domestic Violence Act.
The Rajnesh v. Neha guidelines
In Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, the Supreme Court laid down uniform guidelines to reduce delays and conflicting orders:
- Both parties must file an affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities in every maintenance case.
- Maintenance is payable from the date of filing of the application.
- Where maintenance has been granted in one proceeding, it must be taken into account in a later proceeding under a different law (adjustment or set-off).
- Factors include the status of the parties, reasonable needs of the wife and children, the qualifications and employment of the applicant, the income of the respondent, and the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage.
Divorced Muslim women
In Mohd. Abdul Samad v. State of Telangana, 2024 INSC 506 (decided 10 July 2024), the Supreme Court held that a divorced Muslim woman can seek maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, and that the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 does not exclude this secular remedy. This follows earlier decisions in Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, (1985) 2 SCC 556, and Danial Latifi v. Union of India, (2001) 7 SCC 740.
Practical points
- Gather proof of the other party’s income and assets, such as salary slips, tax returns and bank statements.
- Interim maintenance can be sought while the case is pending.
- Orders can be enforced by recovery proceedings if payments are not made.
Key judgments
- Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324.
- Mohd. Abdul Samad v. State of Telangana, 2024 INSC 506.
- Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, (1985) 2 SCC 556.
- Danial Latifi v. Union of India, (2001) 7 SCC 740.
This article is published for general information only. It does not constitute legal advice or solicitation, and no lawyer–client relationship is created by reading it.