(i) Sufficient Means of the Respondent

The person from whom maintenance is claimed must have "sufficient means" to provide for the claimant. This is a question of fact to be determined in each case.^[3]

(ii) Neglect or Refusal to Maintain

There must be proof of neglect or refusal by the respondent to maintain the claimant.^[3] Even if the husband provides some amount, if it is found insufficient for the wife's maintenance, it can be construed as neglect or refusal.^[9] The legislative intendment is that the wife, minor children, and old parents cannot be left in lurch or at the mercy of the husband/son.^[10]

(iii) Inability of the Claimant to Maintain Herself/Himself

The claimant (wife, child, or parent) must be unable to maintain herself or himself. The expression "unable to maintain herself" does not mean that the wife must be absolutely destitute.^[11] If her personal income is insufficient for her sustenance, she can claim maintenance.^[11] The Jharkhand High Court in Amar Kant Jha v. Smt Karuna Devi reiterated that even if the wife has some income, the husband cannot evade his statutory duty if her income is insufficient.^[10] This condition has been expressly made applicable to the wife under the new Code.^[12]

(i) Wife

Explanation (b) 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.^[11]

In Rohtash Singh v. Ramendri (Smt) And Others, the Supreme Court held that a divorced woman remains entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC even if the divorce was granted on grounds of her desertion, provided she has not remarried. The Court emphasized that for the purpose of Section 125 CrPC, the woman's status as a 'wife' persists post-divorce for maintenance claims.^[13]

The interpretation of "wife" in cases of void or voidable marriages has been a subject of judicial scrutiny. In Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State Of Gujarat And Others, the Supreme Court held that "wife" under Section 125 CrPC refers strictly to a legally wedded spouse, and a woman whose marriage is void ab initio due to the husband's existing valid marriage cannot claim maintenance as a "wife".^[14] However, in Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse And Another, the Court adopted a purposive interpretation, holding that a woman who was fraudulently induced into a marriage by the husband concealing his prior subsisting marriage is entitled to maintenance. The Court emphasized social justice and preventing the husband from taking advantage of his own wrong.^[15] This principle was followed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in SMT SONU W/O SHRI SHAMMI MENDIRATTA, holding that annulment of marriage due to the husband's mischief does not disentitle the wife from maintenance.^[16]

Furthermore, the Supreme Court in Chanmuniya (S) v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha & Anr. advocated for a broad interpretation of "wife" under Section 125 CrPC, suggesting that a presumption of marriage arises from long cohabitation, enabling maintenance claims even in the absence of strict proof of marriage. The matter was referred to a larger bench for authoritative pronouncement on whether an expansive definition should be given to "wife" to include women in relationships akin to marriage.^[17]

(ii) Children (Legitimate or Illegitimate)

Section 125 CrPC provides for maintenance of minor children, whether legitimate or illegitimate, married or unmarried (if a daughter, until she attains majority, unless she is married and her husband can maintain her). It also covers major children (not being a married daughter) who by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury are unable to maintain themselves.

(iii) Parents

Parents unable to maintain themselves can claim maintenance from their sons or daughters who have sufficient means. The term "mother" has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat to include a childless stepmother, provided she is a widow or her husband (the stepchild's father), if living, is incapable of supporting and maintaining her.^[18] This principle has been followed by High Courts.^[19][20]

(i) Factors for Determining Quantum

The Magistrate has the discretion to order such monthly sum as deemed fit. The quantum is determined based on the financial capacity of the husband, the needs of the claimant, the status of the parties, and other relevant factors.^[3] The Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha And Another laid down comprehensive guidelines, including the mandatory filing of Affidavits of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities by both parties to ensure a fair determination of maintenance.^[21]

(ii) From Which Date Payable

Section 125(2) CrPC states that maintenance shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance.^[8] The Supreme Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena And Others held that maintenance can be awarded from the date of application, especially considering undue delays in litigation.^[22] The Court in Rajnesh v. Neha also affirmed that in all cases, maintenance should normally be awarded from the date of application.^[21] The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Paramjit Kaur v. Surinder Singh held that it is within the Magistrate's discretion to grant interim maintenance from the date of application without needing to record special reasons.^[23]

(iii) Maximum Limit

Historically, Section 125 CrPC had a monetary ceiling (e.g., Rs. 500 per month per person).^[2][8] The Supreme Court in Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal clarified that this cap applied per claimant, not cumulatively for all claimants.^[2] This ceiling was removed by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2001 (Act 50 of 2001), allowing courts to award maintenance as deemed fit based on the circumstances.

(i) Interplay with Personal Laws and Other Statutes

As established in Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum^[5] and affirmed in Danial Latifi And Another v. Union Of India^[24] (interpreting the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986), Section 125 CrPC provides a remedy that can supplement rights under personal laws. The Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha extensively discussed the issue of overlapping jurisdictions under various statutes like the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, and the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The Court mandated disclosure of previous maintenance proceedings and directed that any amount awarded under one statute should be adjusted against amounts awarded under another to prevent multiplicity of claims and ensure equity.^[21] If maintenance is awarded under different statutes for the same period, the wife is entitled to choose which order she wants to enforce.^[23]

(ii) Guidelines by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha

To streamline maintenance proceedings, the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha issued comprehensive guidelines, including:

• Mandatory filing of Affidavits of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities.
• Granting maintenance from the date of application.
• Ensuring speedy disposal of interim maintenance applications (ideally within 60 days as per Bimla Devi v. Shamsher Singh^[7]).
• Clear mechanisms for enforcement of maintenance orders.^[21]

(iii) Nature of Proceedings

Proceedings under Section 125 CrPC are summary in nature.^[3][25] They are not criminal trials in the strict sense, and the dismissal of a maintenance petition does not result in an acquittal or discharge as in a criminal complaint.^[8] The standard of proof is not as stringent as in a criminal trial.^[15]

(iv) Enforcement of Orders (Section 128 CrPC)

Section 128 CrPC provides for the enforcement of maintenance orders. A copy of the order is given to the claimant, and it can be enforced by any Magistrate where the person against whom it is made may be, upon satisfaction of identity and non-payment.^[26]

(v) Alteration in Allowance (Section 127 CrPC)

Section 127 CrPC empowers the Magistrate to alter the maintenance allowance if there is a change in the circumstances of either party or if a competent civil court has passed a relevant order.^[27]

(vi) Limitation for Arrears

Proviso to Section 125(3) CrPC limits the right to realize arrears of maintenance to a period of one year from the date on which it becomes due, unless the application for levy of such amount is made within that period.^[27]

(vii) Revival of Proceedings

In Sanjeev Kapoor v. Chandana Kapoor And Others, the Supreme Court held that a Family Court can revive a maintenance application previously disposed of based on a settlement, if the settlement terms are not honored by the husband. Such revival is not barred by Section 362 CrPC, as the interpretation must advance justice.^[28]