Understanding Section 125 CrPC: A Provision for Social Support

Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) is a foundational social justice provision in India. Its main objective is not to punish an individual but to provide a quick, summary remedy to prevent destitution. The Supreme Court of India has affirmed that the provision's purpose is to prevent "vagrancy and destitution."

This legal tool is designed to protect vulnerable members of society by empowering magistrates to order maintenance for wives, children, and parents who are unable to support themselves. The provisions are secular, applying to all persons regardless of their religion.

A Civil Right in a Criminal Court: The Procedural Advantage

An important and often misunderstood aspect of Section 125 is its unique procedural placement. The right to maintenance is essentially a civil right. However, proceedings are held to be "civil in nature," and the Magistrate's jurisdiction is "not strictly a criminal jurisdiction."

Placing this civil right within the Code of Criminal Procedure was a strategic legislative choice. A person facing destitution cannot be expected to endure the lengthy and expensive process of a full civil suit. The CrPC provides the *machinery* for a "speedy remedy" and a "summary" procedure. This allows a Magistrate to deal with situations requiring urgent attention, cutting through procedural delays to provide immediate financial relief.

Who Can Claim Maintenance?

Section 125(1) clearly defines the persons entitled to claim maintenance from an individual "having sufficient means" who "neglects or refuses" to maintain them.

Immediate Relief: The Role of Interim Maintenance

The legal process can be lengthy. Recognizing that a destitute applicant cannot wait months or years for a final judgment, the law provides a solution: **Interim Maintenance**. This is authorized by the first proviso to Section 125(1).

Interim maintenance is a temporary order by the court, directing the respondent to pay a monthly sum to the applicant *while the case is still pending*. The goal is to provide immediate financial support for basic survival.

How the Disclosure Affidavit Powers Interim Claims

This is where the *Rajnesh v. Neha* Affidavit of Disclosure becomes most powerful. Before this mandate, courts had to rely on guesswork to set an interim amount. Now, the court makes a *prima facie* (at first glance) assessment based on the two competing affidavits.

If the applicant's affidavit shows clear needs (rent, school fees) and the respondent's affidavit (or lack thereof) suggests sufficient income, the court can grant a reasonable interim amount. The Supreme Court, in *Rajnesh v. Neha*, directed that the interim maintenance application should be decided within 4 to 6 months.

The Modern Maintenance Claim: Why One Affidavit is No Longer Enough

A significant point of procedural confusion is the number of affidavits required. The process, in fact, mandates two distinct affidavits:

The Rajnesh v. Neha Judgment: A Mandate for Transparency

The mandatory nature of the second affidavit stems from the landmark Supreme Court judgment in *Rajnesh v. Neha* (2021). The Court observed a systemic problem: parties were submitting "scanty material," wives tended to exaggerate needs, and husbands tended to conceal income. This forced Family Courts to engage in "guess work" to fix maintenance.

To fix this, the Supreme Court mandated a "uniform format of Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities" to be filed by *both* parties in *all* maintenance proceedings across India, including cases under Section 125 CrPC.

Comparison: The Two Affidavits

The distinction between these two documents is summarized below.

Affidavit 1: The Traditional Supporting Affidavit (Template)

The traditional Supporting Affidavit remains a necessary procedural component. Its function is to verify the allegations and facts presented in the main petition. It is the formal oath-taking that binds the petitioner to their story.

IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE / FAMILY COURT,
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT NO. __________ OF 20__

IN THE MATTER OF:

1. [Name of Petitioner 1]
2. [Name of Petitioner 2]
   (Address:.........................)
                                                      ... PETITIONERS
                                VERSUS

[Name of Respondent]
(Address:.........................)
                                                      ... RESPONDENT

AFFIDAVIT

I, [Name of Petitioner 1], wife of [Husband's Name], aged [Age] years, presently residing at [Full Address], do hereby solemnly declare and affirm as follows:

1. That I am Petitioner No. 1 in the accompanying petition and I am fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case. I am competent to swear to this affidavit.

2. That Petitioner No. 2, [Name], is my minor son/daughter and is under my care and custody.

3. That whatever I have stated in the accompanying petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been read over and explained to me.

4. That I have understood the contents of the same, which are true and correct to my knowledge and information received. The same may kindly be read as a part of this affidavit to avoid repetition.

5. That the said petition has been drafted by my counsel under my instructions.

                                                            
                                                             DEPONENT

VERIFICATION

Verified at [Place] on this the [Day] day of [Month], 20__, that the contents of the above affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, belief, and information and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

                                                            
                                                             DEPONENT

Solemnly affirmed and signed before me.
                                                            
ADVOCATE / NOTARY / OATH COMMISSIONER

Affidavit 2: The Mandatory *Rajnesh v. Neha* Disclosure Affidavit

This is the new procedural backbone of all maintenance claims. The *Rajnesh v. Neha* judgment created a non-negotiable procedure.

• Who Files: *Both parties*—the applicant and the non-applicant/respondent.
• When to File: The applicant files it *with* the petition. The respondent files it *with* their reply (within a maximum of four weeks).
• Consequences of Non-Compliance: If a respondent willfully fails to file, the court has the power to "strike off the defence of the respondent." This is a serious penalty, allowing the court to decide the case *ex-parte* based only on the applicant's affidavit.

Analysis of the Disclosure Affidavit's Key Parts

The Supreme Court's format is exhaustive. Here is what each part is designed to achieve:

• Part A: Personal Information: Establishes the "status" of the parties. Educational and professional qualifications are a direct proxy for *earning capacity*.
• Part C: Dependent Family Members: For the applicant, this substantiates the *total financial need*. For the respondent, it is used to *reduce* his "net disposable income" by showing his own obligations.
• Part E: Details of Children: A granular breakdown of *all* child-related expenses (school fees, tuitions, medical, activities). This ensures the child's quality of life is maintained.
• Part F: Details of Income: Full disclosure supported by ITRs for the last 3 years, salary slips, and bank statements.
• Part G: Details of Respondent's Income: This is an effective procedural tactic. The applicant states their "best knowledge" of the respondent's income. The burden then shifts to the respondent to *disprove* this allegation with his own documented evidence.
• Part H: Statement of Assets: Full disclosure of property, bank accounts, investments, vehicles, etc. This counters the common "low income" defense. The court assesses *capacity* to pay, not just declared income.
• Part I: Details of Liabilities: Details of all loans, mortgages, and EMIs. This is the respondent's primary tool for *reducing* their "net disposable income."
• Part J: Details of Expenditure: A complete monthly budget. This must be realistic and align with the "marital lifestyle" claim.

Note: The full, multi-page template for the *Rajnesh v. Neha* affidavit is a standard format (Enclosure I in the judgment) provided by the Supreme Court and must be obtained and filled out meticulously.

The Maintenance Claim Process (Post Rajnesh v. Neha)

The Anchor: Drafting the Main Maintenance Petition (Template)

The two affidavits do not exist in a vacuum; they support the main *Petition for Maintenance*. This petition is the anchor document that establishes the narrative, the facts of the case, and the legal grounds for the claim.

IN THE COURT OF THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE / FAMILY COURT,
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT NO. __________ OF 20__

IN THE MATTER OF:

1. [Name of Petitioner 1] (Wife)
2. [Name of Petitioner 2] (Minor Son/Daughter)
   (Address:.........................)
                                                      ... PETITIONERS
                                VERSUS

[Name of Respondent] (Husband)
(Address:.........................)
                                                      ... RESPONDENT

SUBJECT: PETITION UNDER SECTION 125 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973, FOR GRANT OF MAINTENANCE.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the Petitioner No. 1 is the legally wedded wife of the Respondent, and Petitioner No. 2 is their minor son/daughter, born out of this wedlock.

2. That the marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and the Respondent was solemnized on [Date] at [Place] as per [e.g., Hindu] rites and ceremonies.

3. [Briefly state the narrative of the relationship, birth of children, etc.]

4. [Briefly state the narrative of cruelty, disputes, and/or neglect. Provide specific instances that led to the separation.]

5. That on [Date], the Respondent compelled the Petitioner(s) to leave the matrimonial home. Since that day, the Petitioner(s) have been residing at [e.g., her parental home].

6. That the Petitioner(s) have been neglected by the Respondent, who has failed and refused to provide any maintenance for their livelihood, despite having sufficient means to do so.

7. That the Petitioner No. 1 is [e.g., a homemaker] and has no independent source of income and is wholly unable to maintain herself and the minor child, Petitioner No. 2.

8. That the Respondent, on the other hand, is a person of substantial means. He is employed as [Job Title] at [Company Name] and earns approximately Rs. [Amount] per month. [Add other known income/assets].

9. That the accompanying Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities (as per the guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha) is filed with this petition, detailing the financial status of the Petitioner.

10. That this Hon'ble Court has the jurisdiction to try and adjudicate this petition.

PRAYER

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:

(a) Direct the Respondent to pay a monthly maintenance allowance of Rs. [Amount] to Petitioner No. 1 and Rs. [Amount] to Petitioner No. 2 from the date of filing of this application.
(b) Direct the Respondent to pay a sum of Rs. [Amount] towards the costs of this litigation.
(c) Pass any other order or relief(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit.

PETITIONER(S)
Through

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER(S)

Date:
Place:
(To be accompanied by Supporting Affidavit and Affidavit of Disclosure)

Strategic Insights: Making Your Claim Coherent

A successful maintenance claim rests on the perfect alignment of three documents: the Main Petition, the Supporting Affidavit, and the Affidavit of Disclosure. These documents must tell one consistent story.

1. The Main Petition makes the *allegation* (e.g., "The Respondent earns Rs. 2,00,000 per month").
2. The Supporting Affidavit *swears* that this allegation is "true and correct."
3. The Affidavit of Disclosure *details* this allegation (e.g., "Rs. 1,50,000 from salary, Rs. 50,000 from rental income") and provides the *justification* for the claim (e.g., "Petitioner's total monthly expenses are Rs. 75,000").

Any inconsistency—such as claiming a high-status lifestyle in the petition while listing minimal expenses in the affidavit—will be used by opposing counsel to damage the petitioner's credibility.

Finally, the *Rajnesh v. Neha* affidavit becomes *evidence* only when supported by documents. A claim for "school fees" must be annexed with the *fee receipt*. A claim for "low income" is only credible if supported by bank statements and ITRs. The affidavit is the map; the annexed documents are the territory.

Enforcement of Maintenance: Section 125(3)

Receiving a maintenance order is only half the battle; ensuring timely payment is the other half. Section 125(3) provides the mechanism for *enforcing* the order if the respondent fails to pay "without sufficient cause."

If the respondent defaults, the applicant must file an execution petition. The Magistrate can then:

• Issue a Warrant: A warrant is issued to levy the amount due from the respondent's assets, similar to recovering a fine. This can involve attachment and sale of property (movable or immovable).
• Order Attachment of Salary: If the respondent is salaried, the court can order their employer to deduct the maintenance amount directly from their salary.
• Order Imprisonment: If the amount cannot be recovered, the Magistrate can sentence the respondent to imprisonment for a term which may extend to *one month* for each month's unpaid maintenance (or until payment is made, whichever is sooner).

The Enforcement Process Flow

Common Defences Raised by the Respondent

The respondent (husband, father, or son) also has the right to contest the maintenance claim. Section 125(4) and 125(5) outline specific statutory defences.

Quantum of Maintenance: How is the Amount Decided?

There is no fixed mathematical formula (like a percentage) for calculating maintenance in India. The court has wide discretion to award an amount that is "reasonable and fair." The court performs a balancing act, considering multiple factors.

Factors Weighed by the Court

While some High Court judgments have used 25% of the husband's net income as a "benchmark" or "just guide" (e.g., *Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury*), this is *not* a binding rule. The *Rajnesh v. Neha* affidavit, with its detailed expense and asset lists, has largely replaced such benchmarks with a more holistic, evidence-based calculation.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)