The Legal Framework of Maintenance in India: Safeguarding the Rights of Wives, Children and Parents

1. Introduction:

In India, the principle of maintenance is both a deeply rooted societal obligation and a legally mandated duty designed to protect vulnerable individuals from destitution. This responsibility underscores a broader societal commitment to social justice and welfare, especially for those unable to sustain themselves. The legal framework surrounding maintenance aims to mitigate financial dependency arising from personal, social, or economic factors, thereby ensuring basic dignity and support for those in need.

Indian laws provide for maintenance primarily to wives, children, and parents, recognizing their inherent right to a standard of living commensurate with their needs and prior lifestyle. These provisions serve not merely as legal safeguards but also as crucial instruments for fostering social equity across India’s diverse and often unequal landscape.

2. Dual Legal Avenues for Maintenance:

Indian maintenance laws are designed to provide essential financial assistance to individuals who lack the means to support themselves, operating through two distinct yet complementary legal avenues: religion-specific personal laws and universally applicable secular laws.

Personal Laws:

Within the framework of personal laws, various statutes govern maintenance based on religious affiliation:

• Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: This Act includes comprehensive provisions for both temporary and ongoing financial support for spouses.
  • Section 24 (Alimony Pendente Lite): Allows a spouse to seek financial stability during ongoing matrimonial proceedings, ensuring their essential needs are met while the case is being adjudicated.
  • Section 25 (Permanent Alimony and Maintenance): Provides for long-term financial security, granting permanent maintenance and alimony at the time of the decree or later.
• Other Personal Laws: Parallel provisions exist in other specific personal laws, such as the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act and the Divorce Act, which cater to the maintenance needs of spouses within their respective communities.
• Muslim Law: Muslim personal law grants a wife the right to maintenance during the subsistence of the marriage. Furthermore, a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to iddat maintenance, with the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, specifically addressing the maintenance rights of divorced Muslim women.

Secular Laws:

In addition to personal laws, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, offers a crucial secular avenue for maintenance claims, ensuring a broader safety net irrespective of religious affiliation.

• Section 144 of the BNSS: This pivotal section enables wives, children, and parents who cannot support themselves to seek financial assistance. Under this provision, a wife can claim maintenance if she is unable to support herself and her husband, despite having the means, neglects or refuses to provide for her. This remedy is universally available, providing a broad safeguard for vulnerable individuals.
• Maintenance for Children: While personal laws include provisions for the maintenance of minor children, ensuring their financial needs are met, Section 144 of the BNSS extends this protection more broadly. It covers all children, regardless of legitimacy, who are unable to support themselves, including those who are major but suffer from any physical or mental abnormality or injury.

3. Maintenance of Wife:

Under specific conditions, a wife can seek financial support, known as maintenance, from her husband. The eligibility for and the extent of this maintenance are decided based on several factors: the husband’s financial capacity, including his earnings, possessions, and debts; the wife’s essential needs, encompassing living expenses, lifestyle requirements, and healthcare costs; the couple’s established standard of living during their marriage; and the wife’s individual income, which may influence the maintenance amount granted.

4. Maintenance of Parents:

In India, both legal statutes and ethical principles dictate that children are responsible for supporting parents who cannot support themselves. This duty is acknowledged in religious personal laws as well as secular legislation.

The Senior Citizens and Parents Maintenance Act of 2007 focuses on providing financial support for senior citizens and parents. The Act defines “parents” broadly to include biological, adoptive, and stepparents. Key provisions include:

• Section 4:Establishes the legal responsibility of children to provide maintenance for their parents.

• Section 5:Mandates the creation of Maintenance Tribunals to process and adjudicate maintenance requests.

• Section 9:Specifies the details of how maintenance orders are determined.

• Section 12:Addresses the procedures for ensuring compliance with maintenance orders.

5. Maintenance of Children:

Both children born within and outside of marriage have the right to receive financial support from their parents until they reach adulthood, and this support may continue past that age in certain situations, particularly if they have a physical or mental disability.

6. Maintenance Claim by Husband Against Wife:

Under Section 144 BNSS, a husband who is unable to maintain himself may claim maintenance from his wife, if she has sufficient means and has neglected or refused to maintain him. Similarly, parents (father or mother) who are unable to maintain themselves can claim maintenance from their children (son or daughter). However, this provision does not extend to in-laws – for example, a daughter-in-law is not legally obligated under Section 144 BNSS to maintain her husband’s parents.

7. Factors Determining the Quantum of Maintenance:

When adjudicating the appropriate quantum of maintenance, courts are guided by a range of factors to ensure a just and equitable award. These considerations, often drawn from judicial precedents and the spirit of Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, include:

• Financial Capacity of the Respondent: This is paramount and encompasses their current income, potential earning capacity, assets (both movable and immovable), and existing debts or liabilities.
• Applicant’s Essential Needs: Courts assess the applicant’s basic necessities, including food, clothing, shelter, medical care, education expenses (for children), and other reasonable living expenses.
• Established Standard of Living of the Parties: A crucial factor is the lifestyle the parties maintained during the marriage. The maintenance awarded should, as far as possible, enable the applicant to sustain a similar accustomed standard of living.
• Applicant’s Earning Ability/Capacity: While maintenance aims to prevent destitution, courts may consider the applicant’s potential to earn. A voluntary and unjustified choice not to work, despite having the capacity, can influence the maintenance amount. However, this is balanced against the need to support and enable the applicant.
• Duration of the Marriage: This is a relevant consideration, particularly in cases of long-term marriages, when determining maintenance, especially for wives.
• Respondent’s Other Legal Obligations: Courts acknowledge other legitimate financial responsibilities of the respondent, such as maintenance for other dependents (e.g., elderly parents or children from another marriage), but these are weighed against the applicant’s needs.
• These principles have been crystallized in various judgments, notably in Rajesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, where the Supreme Court emphasized that there is no fixed formula for calculating maintenance. Instead, courts must holistically consider all relevant factors to arrive at a fair and equitable amount, aimed at ensuring the applicant’s dignified subsistence from the date of the application.

8. Jurisdiction for Section 144 BNSS (Maintenance) Cases:

Section 145 of the BNSS outlines the jurisdictional rules for initiating maintenance proceedings under Section 144 (maintenance for wives, children, and parents). A Section 144 claim can be filed against a person in any of the following districts:

(a) The district where the person currently resides. (b) The district where the person’s wife (or the child’s mother, for illegitimate children) currently resides. (c) The district where the person and their wife (or the child’s mother, for illegitimate children) last resided together.

Example:

A husband and wife last lived together in Chandigarh. The wife, fleeing domestic violence, now lives with her parents in Delhi, while the husband remains in Chandigarh. The wife can file a Section 144 claim in either Chandigarh (husband’s residence) or Delhi (wife’s residence).

9. Ineligible Cases:

A wife is not entitled to maintenance, interim maintenance, or expenses related to legal proceedings if any of the following apply:

1. She is living apart from her husband without a valid or acceptable reason. b. She is engaging in adultery. c. She is living separately from her husband as a result of a mutual agreement.

10. Proceeding Ex-Parte:

If a Magistrate finds that a person against whom a maintenance order is sought is deliberately evading service or intentionally failing to appear in court, the Magistrate has the authority to hear and decide the case in their absence. This provision is outlined in the proviso to Section 145 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

11. Date of Commencement:

The Magistrate has the discretion to grant maintenance starting from the date of application submission. However, if the Magistrate decides to issue such an order, they must provide reasons for their decision. Consequently, maintenance can be awarded either from the date of the order or from the date of the maintenance application, depending on the Magistrate’s decision. To prevent maintenance from being awarded from the date of application, an explicit order is required. Moreover, when a civil court passes a decree for the recovery of maintenance or dowry, they must consider any amounts already paid under Section 145 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

12. Second Wife:

In the context of Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), now Section 144 of the BNSS, the definition of “wife” extends to women who have been divorced, either by their husband or through their own initiative, provided they have not remarried. This inclusive definition broadens the scope of “wife” beyond its strict legal interpretation to align with the provision’s objective. Nevertheless, a second wife whose marriage is considered void due to the subsistence of the first marriage is not recognized as a legally wedded wife and is therefore ineligible for maintenance under this section, as established in the case of Vimala (K.) v. Veeraswamy (K.), (1991) 2 SCC 375.

13. Cohabiting with Husband:

A husband cannot avoid his responsibility to provide maintenance to his wife by offering support only if she resides with him. Courts should carefully scrutinize such offers, recognizing they may be a manipulative strategy to escape alimony obligations. If a wife presents legitimate grounds for her inability to cohabitate with her husband, the court retains the power to mandate maintenance payments. Examples of justifiable reasons for a wife’s refusal to live with her husband, as clarified in the explanation to Section 144 of the BNSS, encompass situations where the husband has entered into a second marriage or is maintaining a mistress.

14. Enforcement of Order of Maintenance (Section 147 of the BNSS):

Maintenance orders, encompassing interim awards and associated legal costs, are enforceable by any Magistrate within whose territorial jurisdiction the respondent is located. Given that enforcement often necessitates property attachment – and a person’s property typically resides where they live – execution proceedings for maintenance orders can be initiated before the Magistrate where the respondent is physically present. Alternatively, the applicant can seek assistance from the court within whose jurisdiction the respondent resides.

Acknowledging that an individual subject to a maintenance order may relocate, a levy warrant issued by the original court can be enforced anywhere in India where the respondent currently lives. This crucial principle is enshrined in Section 147 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

It is crucial to understand that Section 147 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 primarily grants the Magistrate the power to execute a maintenance order by utilizing the procedures for recovering fines as detailed in the BNSS.

While Section 147 BNSS itself does not directly authorize the initial sentencing of a defaulter to imprisonment, it facilitates the enforcement of an order passed under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, which does include the power to impose imprisonment for non-compliance. The powers granted to a Magistrate under Section 144 and Section 147 of the BNSS are distinct in their primary function (passing the order versus executing it), but they work in conjunction for comprehensive enforcement.

Therefore, a petition filed solely for execution under Section 147 cannot be treated as an initial application for maintenance under Section 144.

Under Section 144(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Magistrate has the explicit power to issue an arrest warrant against someone who fails to comply with a maintenance order without sufficient cause.

The purpose of this warrant is to recover the outstanding maintenance, using the same methods employed for fine collection. Additionally, the Magistrate is empowered to sentence the non-compliant individual to imprisonment for a maximum of one month, which can be terminated either upon payment of the maintenance or completion of the sentence.

Several robust methods exist for the enforcement of maintenance orders. These include:

• Salary Attachment: The court mandates the employer of the liable party to deduct maintenance payments directly from their salary or wages.
• Property Attachment: The court is enabled to seize and sell the liable party’s assets to recover the outstanding maintenance.
• Imprisonment: In certain instances, as outlined in Section 144(3) BNSS, imprisonment may be ordered for defaulting on maintenance obligations.

15. Issuance Of Warrant of Arrest for Violating Maintenance Order:

Under Section 144(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, a Magistrate has the power to issue an arrest warrant against someone who fails to comply with a maintenance order without sufficient cause. The purpose of this warrant is to recover the outstanding maintenance, using the same methods employed for fine collection. In addition, the Magistrate is empowered to sentence the non-compliant individual to imprisonment for a maximum of one month, which can be terminated either upon payment of the maintenance or completion of the sentence.

16. Quantum of Maintenance:

In Rajesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324, the Supreme Court established comprehensive guidelines for determining the quantum of maintenance, emphasizing that there is no fixed formula. Courts must consider various factors such as the status and reasonable needs of both parties, their income and property, number of dependents, and the standard of living in the matrimonial home. The court directed that maintenance should generally be awarded from the date of the application to prevent deprivation due to delays in legal proceedings. This case is significant for streamlining the process of awarding maintenance and ensuring uniformity across courts in India.

The Supreme Court’s guidelines address issues such as the timeline for filing maintenance applications, the disclosure of income and assets by both parties, and the criteria for determining maintenance amounts. The judgment aimed to reduce delays, prevent misuse of the legal process, and ensure just, consistent outcomes in maintenance cases, marking a progressive step towards protecting the rights of spouses and children, especially in matrimonial disputes.

17. Interim and Permanent Maintenance:

Maintenance, encompassing both interim and permanent forms, pertains to the provision of financial support as determined by legal proceedings. Interim maintenance, granted during the pendency of a case (such as a divorce), offers immediate financial aid to an applicant, enabling them to cover essential expenses while the matter is being adjudicated. Conversely, permanent maintenance, often referred to as alimony, is awarded upon the resolution of a case or afterwards, providing sustained financial assistance, exemplified by regular monthly payments to a divorced spouse.

18. Proof of Marriage:

Under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the practical reality of a marital relationship takes precedence over its strict legal validity. Consequently, even marriages with uncertain legal standing may still warrant maintenance awards if all other requirements of the section are satisfied. Proceedings under this section, designed for speed and to prevent destitution, require a less demanding level of marital proof than formal divorce or annulment cases. The law presumes a valid marriage for the purpose of a wife’s maintenance claim when a man and woman live together as husband and wife. This presumption of marriage over mere cohabitation is reinforced by case law, such as Kamala v. M.R. Mohan Kumar, particularly when a couple has cohabited continuously for a substantial period.

19. Territorial Jurisdiction in case of Wife:

This analysis explores the procedure and jurisdictional aspects of initiating maintenance proceedings under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Section 145 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, details the process. Specifically, Section144 BNSS proceedings can be brought against a person in any district where: (a) they currently live; (b) they or their spouse currently live; or (c) they last resided with their spouse, or, regarding an illegitimate child, with the child’s mother.

To illustrate, imagine a husband and wife who shared a residence in Chandigarh. Facing domestic violence and cruelty, the wife was forced to leave and now lives with her parents in Delhi, while the husband remains in Chandigarh. In this scenario, jurisdiction to initiate maintenance proceedings under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, exists both in Chandigarh, where the husband is presently residing, and in Delhi, where the wife now resides.

20. Territorial Jurisdiction in case of Parents:

Regarding territorial jurisdiction for maintenance cases involving parents, the Supreme Court, in Vijay Kumar Prasad v. State of Bihar, definitively established that an application filed by parents under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (now Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) can be lodged where the respondent, from whom maintenance is sought, currently resides. Given the principles enshrined in the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, the jurisdictional provisions within Section 126 of the CrPC (now Section 145 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) warrant a comprehensive legislative review.

The Allahabad High Court, in Gangasaran Varshney v. Shakuntala Devi, suggested that the exclusion of parents from Section 126(1)(b) CrPC was likely an oversight. This view was based on the principle that Indian maintenance laws aim to protect vulnerable individuals, a category that includes indigent parents. Since Section 126(1)(b) CrPC (now Section 145(b) BNSS) allowed wives and mothers of illegitimate children to file for maintenance in their district of residence, the court believed excluding parents would contradict the humanitarian purpose of these laws and the societal duty of children to support their parents. Consequently, the court interpreted the law to allow parents to file maintenance applications under Section 125 CrPC (now Section 144 BNSS) in the district where they resided.

21. Recent Developments:

The legal framework governing maintenance in India is a dynamic and continuously evolving domain, marked by ongoing legislative adjustments and profound judicial interpretations. Within the Indian legal system, these provisions are under constant scrutiny and refinement.

A significant and consistent trend emerging from recent Supreme Court pronouncements is a heightened emphasis on ensuring not just basic sustenance, but a dignified and respectful life for dependent spouses, particularly women. This reflects an evolving understanding of social and gender justice. For instance, in Rakhi Sadhukhan v. Raja Sadhukhan (June 2025), the Supreme Court significantly enhanced permanent alimony, stressing that maintenance must reflect the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage and reasonably secure the future of the dependent spouse.

Similarly, in Rajiv Verghese v. Rose Chakkrammankkil Francis (January 2025), the Apex Court underscored that maintenance should ensure the spouse continues to enjoy the lifestyle maintained during the marriage, and rigorously assesses the husband’s entire earning capacity, not just current income, to ensure fair awards. Further, the landmark judgment in Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan (2015), consistently cited, reiterated that a woman’s sustenance does not mean mere “animal existence” but a life of dignity befitting her status.

Simultaneously, the judiciary is increasingly vigilant in addressing instances where financially capable spouses attempt to evade their maintenance obligations. This growing recognition aims to prevent the circumvention of these crucial duties, reinforcing that the right to maintenance is integral to the right to sustenance and dignity, even prioritizing it over certain creditor claims, as observed in cases like Apurva v. Dolly and Ors. (December 2024). These judicial interventions underscore the commitment to ensuring that legal technicalities do not defeat the humanitarian purpose of maintenance provisions.

Conclusion:

The legal provisions governing maintenance in India reflect a broader societal commitment to upholding the dignity and well-being of those who are economically dependent. Rooted in both personal and secular laws, the framework ensures that wives, children, and parents are not left destitute due to abandonment, neglect, or incapacity. With the evolution of legal standards – from the Criminal Procedure Code to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 -the courts have continued to expand protections, clarify rights, and streamline enforcement mechanisms. Judgments like Rajesh v. Neha underscore the judiciary’s proactive role in ensuring fair maintenance, considering real-life economic and social contexts.

However, disparities in implementation and procedural delays still pose challenges. Strengthening awareness, enhancing tribunal efficiency, and ensuring equitable application across communities remain essential to realising the full potential of maintenance laws in promoting social justice and economic security.

In sum, the legal provisions surrounding maintenance in India represent a critical pillar of social justice, ensuring economic support and dignity for vulnerable family members. While personal laws address community-specific issues, secular statutes like the BNSS provide a safety net across religious lines. Judicial interpretation continues to refine and enforce these rights, ensuring the law evolves in line with contemporary realities.

 References:

• Apurva v. Dolly and Others, (2024). High Court of Delhi, decided December 2024.
• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 2023 (India).
• Gangasaran Varshney v. Shakuntala Devi, (2005). Allahabad High Court.
• Kamala v. M.R. Mohan Kumar, (2015) 11 SCC 467.
• Rajesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324.
• Rajiv Verghese v. Rose Chakkrammankkil Francis, (2025). Supreme Court of India, decided January 2025.
• Rakhi Sadhukhan v. Raja Sadhukhan, (2025). Supreme Court of India, decided June 2025.
• Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan, (2015) 5 SCC 705.
• The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, No. 56, Acts of Parliament, 2007 (India).
• Vijay Kumar Prasad v. State of Bihar, (2004) 5 SCC 196.
• Vimala (K.) v. Veeraswamy (K.), (1991) 2 SCC 375.