Mandatory Maintenance for Minor Children and Retroactive Relief under Section 125 CrPC

Introduction

The case of Hasina Khatoon & Anr. v. Aszad Ansari, decided by the High Court of Judicature at Patna on 28 February 2025, addresses two critical gaps in maintenance jurisprudence under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC): the treatment of minor children’s claims and the retroactivity of maintenance awards. The petitioners—Mrs. Hasina Khatoon and her young daughter Jamuna—challenged a Family Court order that granted the wife a monthly maintenance of ₹1,500 from the date of the order but made no provision for the minor daughter. They sought (a) inclusion of the daughter’s claim, (b) enhancement of the wife’s maintenance, and (c) payment from the date of filing the petition (1 March 2012). The respondent, Mr. Aszad Ansari, contested only on the ground of alleged adultery and dissolution of marriage.

Summary of the Judgment

The Patna High Court held that:

Section 125 CrPC unquestionably entitles a minor child to maintenance from her father; omission of any order in favor of Jamuna was illegal.
Given the husband’s admitted or uncontested income of ₹30,000 per month, and considering his dependents (including a second wife and elderly parents), a fair maintenance allowance is ₹2,000 per month each for the wife and the daughter.
Maintenance must operate retrospectively from the date the petition was filed—1 March 2012—pursuant to Section 125(2) CrPC and binding precedents.
The impugned order was modified to reflect both the enhanced quantum and the retroactive commencement date.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court anchored its reasoning in several landmark decisions:

Danial Latifi & Anr. v. Union of India (2001 7 SCC 740) – Clarified that Muslim women, including divorced Muslim women, retain rights under Section 125 CrPC in addition to rights under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.
Md. Abdul Samad v. State of Telangana & Anr. (2025 2 SCC 49) – Reiterated that divorced Muslim women may invoke Section 125 CrPC for maintenance beyond iddat, and any allowance under the 1986 Act must be considered in applications under Section 127.
Shail Kumari Devi & Anr. v. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak (2008 9 SCC 632) – Held that courts may order maintenance to operate from the date of application without extensive reasoning, relying simply on an express direction.

Legal Reasoning

The High Court followed a structured approach:

Entitlement of Minor Child – Section 125(1)(d) CrPC makes the father liable to maintain “legitimate or illegitimate minor child.” Omission of any order in Jamuna’s favor contravened the statute.
Quantum of Maintenance – With the husband’s income held at a minimum of ₹30,000 per month, and no credible evidence of the wife’s earning capacity (the respondent’s late pleading of the wife’s income was ignored), the Court apportioned ₹2,000 per month each to mother and daughter, balancing need and the husband’s capacity.
Retroactivity – Under Section 125(2) CrPC, “the allowance may be ordered to be paid from the date of the application.” Applying Shail Kumari Devi, the Court fixed the start date as 1 March 2012.
Admissibility of Adultery Allegation – Although the husband alleged adultery to disentitle the wife under Section 125(4), he failed to adduce any proof and did not challenge the impugned order. Therefore, the claim was not examined, and the maintenance award stood.

Impact on Future Cases

This ruling reinforces and clarifies three important principles:

Minor children cannot be overlooked in maintenance petitions; courts must make explicit orders for their upkeep.
Maintenance awards under Section 125 CrPC can be made retroactive to the date of petition—ensuring victims do not lose relief during protracted proceedings.
Allegations of misconduct (such as adultery) must be pleaded and proved; unchallenged Family Court orders cannot be set aside for issues not contest‑ ed on appeal or revision.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Section 125 CrPC – A summary remedy obliging husbands (and parents) to provide maintenance to wives, children, and parents unable to support themselves; non‑compliance attracts criminal liability.
Iddat – A waiting period (usually three menstrual cycles) a divorced Muslim woman must observe before remarrying; maintenance during this period is a separate obligation.
Dain‑Mehar – A mandatory dower amount under Islamic law, payable by the husband to the wife at marriage or upon divorce.
Retroactivity – Ordering maintenance from the date of petition ensures that the aggrieved party is not left without support during court delays.
Amicus Curiae – An independent lawyer appointed by the court to assist in legal points; here, Ms. Soni Srivastava aided in clarifying the interface of Muslim personal law and Section 125 CrPC.

Conclusion

The Patna High Court’s decision in Hasina Khatoon & Anr. v. Aszad Ansari sets a robust precedent for inclusive, equitable maintenance jurisprudence. It underscores that:

Minor children born within wedlock are entitled to direct maintenance orders under Section 125 CrPC.
Courts may—and should—order maintenance from the date of application to avoid leaving dependents destitute during litigation.
Maintenance awards must reflect the actual income of the respondent and the needs of all dependents.

By merging statutory obligations with practical justice, the ruling advances the protective purpose of Section 125 CrPC and ensures vulnerable family members receive timely relief.