INTRODUCTION

The word ‘Maintenance’ is not defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Chapter IX
of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with provisions for maintenance of wives, children
and parents. ‘Maintenance’ in general meaning is keeping something in good condition.
‘Maintenance’ in legal meaning is money (alimony) that someone must pay regularly to a
former wife, husband or partner, especially when they have had children together. It is the
duty of every person to maintain his wife, children and aged parents, who are not able to live
on their own. 

Section 125 of Cr.PC deals with “Order of maintenance of wives, children and parents”. In
this Section, it is given the name of parties who are entitled to get maintenance, essential
ingredients to claim and get maintenance and order of the first-class magistrate. A Magistrate
of the First Class may pass an order against such a person, ordering him to make a monthly
allowance for the maintenance of such child, father or mother, as the case may be, at such
monthly rate as such Magistrate thinks fit. In the case of a minor female child who is married,
if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband of such a minor female is not possessed of
sufficient means, an order can be made against the father of the child to make such allowance
until she attains the age of majority.

In the case of Chanmuniya v Virendra Singh (2011) 1 SCC 141), Supreme Court has
defined ‘Wife’ and it includes even those cases where a man and woman have been living
together as husband and wife for a reasonably long period of time. Strict proof of marriage
should not be a precondition of maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.PC.

In the case of Smt. Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v Ranantrao Shivram Adhav (1982) 84
BOMLR 298, the Supreme Court held that marriage of women in accordance with Hindu
rites with a man having a living spouse is completely nullity in the eye of law and she is not
entitled to benefit under Section 125 of the Cr.PC.

The person from whom maintenance is claimed must have neglected or refused to maintain
the person or persons entitled to claim maintenance.

It is a very important condition for granting maintenance that a person who is claiming
maintenance must be unable to maintain himself/herself. For example- If a wife is earning
well, then she can not claim maintenance under this Section. In the case of Abdulmunaf v
Salima 1979 Cr LJ 172, it was held that the wife who is hale and healthy and is sufficiently
educated to earn for herself but refuses to earn from own and claim maintenance from her
husband will be entitled to claim maintenance but that her refusal to earn under the
circumstances would disentitle her to get complete amount of maintenance.

In case of maintenance claimed by wife from her husband-

1. She must not be living in adultery

2. She must not refuse, without just ground, to live with her husband,

3. She must not be living separately by mutual consent.

An application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code may be filed in the court of
first class Magistrate in any district

a. Where he is, or

b. Where he or his wife resides, or

c. Where he last resided with his wife, or as the case may be, with the mother of the
illegitimate child.

As per second proviso to Section 125(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, during the
pendency of the proceeding regarding monthly allowance for the maintenance under Section
125(1) of the Code, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the interim
maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, and the expenses of such proceeding
which the Magistrate considers reasonable, and to pay the same to such person as the
Magistrate may from time to time direct
 IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, DELHI.

MAINTENANCE APPLICATION NO. 2324 OF 2017

IN THE MATTER OF :-

1. Smt. Mansi Jain W/o Shivendra Jain R/o 45-D, New

Friends Colony, New Delhi 110025

2. Master Vivek Jain S/o Shivendra Jain R/o 45-D, New

Friends Colony, New Delhi 110025 through his mother

and natural guardian Smt. Mansi Jain

…PETITIONERS

VERSUS

Shivendra Jain S/o Rajesh Jain R/o 65-C, New Friends Colony

New Delhi 110025

…RESPONDENT

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 125 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL

PROCEDURE, 1973
The Petitioners above named most respectfully submits as under :-

1. That Petitioner No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the Respondent while

Petitioner No. 2 is the legitimate son of the Respondent. Both the Petitioners

are residing within the jurisdiction of this Hon‟ble Court.

2. That Petitioner No. 1 was married to the Respondent under the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 post the completion of all the rites and ceremonies on

Fourteenth day of February Two Thousand (14.02.2000) at New Delhi and

Petitioner No. 2 was born out of their wedlock on First day of January Two

Thousand Four (01.01.2004). Petitioner No. 2 is staying with Petitioner No.1 at

present.

3. That Petitioner No.1 and Respondent had been staying together after the

solemnisation of their marriage.

4. That sometime during the period April-May, 2018, the matrimonial life of

Petitioner No.1 and the Respondent got disturbed on account of the

illegitimate affair of the Respondent with a girl named Mrs. Rupali Khanna.

Petitioner No.1 made best possible efforts to persuade the Respondent to

desist from indulging in an affair outside their wedlock. However, the same

had no effect on the Respondent. Rather, the behavior of the Respondent

towards Petitioner No.1 became rude, cruel and oppressive, and finally on

Twenty Nineth day of August Two Thousand Eighteen (29.08.2018), the

Respondent compelled Petitioner No.1 to leave the matrimonial home along

with Petitioner No. 2, since then, the Petitioners are staying with Petitioner

No.1‟s father.
5. That the Petitioner No. 1 has made repeated attempts to join the Respondent

in the matrimonial home. However, the Respondent has refused to take back

the Petitioners and has clearly informed Petitioner No.1 that he was planning

to marry Mrs. Rupali Khanna though the same is not permissible under law.

As such, the Respondent has deserted the Petitioners without any reasonable

cause.

6. That the Respondent is liable to maintain the Petitioners who have repeatedly

requested the Respondent to provide them the appropriate maintenance.

However, the Respondent has not only refused/neglected to maintain the

Petitioners, but has also refused to ever part with/return the articles

belonging to Petitioner No.1 towards the dowry and Stridhan which are lying

at the Respondent’s house.

7. That the Respondent is a man of status and is working as a General Manager

in Hindustan Computer Limited. He is getting monthly emoluments of about

Rs. 10,00,0000 per month and as such has sufficient means to maintain himself

and the Petitioners. He has no encumbrances or liabilities except that of

maintenance of the Petitioners.

8. That Petitioner No.1 has no independent source of livelihood and as such is

unable to maintain herself. She is staying with her father at Delhi and as such

both the Petitioners are dependent upon him.

9. That Petitioner No. 2 is a minor and is also staying with Petitioner No.1. He is

studying in Shri Ram School, New Delhi, and his monthly expenditure

including school fees, dresses etc. etc. is more than Rs. 2,00,000/-. Apart from

this, Petitioner No.1 has also kept a maidservant to properly look after
 Petitioner No. 2 and is paying her Rs. 10,000 per month which is presently

being borne by her father.

10. That the Complainants are residing at Delhi. This Hon‟ble Court therefore is

competent to entertain and try this petition.

PRAYER

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the orders for maintenance of the

Complainants be passed in favour of the Complainant and against the

Respondent directing the Respondent to pay the monthly allowance of Rs.

5,00,000/- towards the maintenance of Petitioner No.1 and Rs 2,50,000/- towards

the maintenance of Petitioner No. 2. The costs of these proceedings be also

awarded to the Petitioner.

PETITIONERS

THROUGH

PLACE: NEW DELHI

DATED: 15th May 2020

Sd/-

ADVOCATE

Sd/-

PETITIONERS

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPLE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT

 AT NEW DELHI

MAINTENANCE APPLICATION NO. 2324 OF 2020

IN THE MATTER OF:

1. Smt. Mansi Jain W/o Shivendra Jain R/o 45-D, New

Friends Colony, New Delhi 110025

2. Master Vivek Jain S/o Shivendra Jain R/o 45-D, New

Friends Colony, New Delhi 110025 through his mother

and natural guardian Smt. Mansi Jain

…PETITIONERS

VERSUS

Shivendra Jain S/o Rajesh Jain R/o 65-C, New Friends Colony

New Delhi 110025

…RESPONDENT
 AFFIDAVIT

I, Mansi Jain W/o Shivendra Jain R/o 45-D, New Friends Colony, New Delhi 110025

in my individual capacity and on behalf of my son Vivek Jain do hereby solemnly

affirm and declare as under.

That the accompanying petition has been drafted by my counsel on my instruction

and re true and correct. The content of same may be treated as part and parcel of the

affidavit.

Sd/-

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION

Verified at New Delhi on the Fifteenth Day of May Two thousand and twenty

(15.05.2020). The contents of the above affidavit are true and correct to my

knowledge.

Sd/-

DEPONENT