The Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified that funds deposited in a Sukanya Samraddhi Account, though ostensibly paid by a husband for family welfare, do not constitute actual payment towards maintenance under Section 125 CrPC if the amount remains locked-in and inaccessible to the wife or children. This ruling reinforces the principle that maintenance obligations must be satisfied through liquid, immediately available funds.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Vivek Upadhyay, sought to set off an amount of Rs.3.00 lakhs against his ongoing maintenance liability under Section 125 CrPC, which had been fixed by the Family Court. He claimed that during negotiations for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, he had paid Rs.4.50 lakhs to his wife, Smt. Sudha Upadhyay. However, the divorce proceedings failed to complete after the first motion, and the second motion was never filed. The petitioner contended that since the divorce did not materialize, the entire amount paid should be considered as advance maintenance or adjustment towards future obligations.
Key Facts
- The petitioner and respondent initiated divorce proceedings under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act in 2025
- On 15.01.2025, during the first motion stage, the petitioner transferred Rs.4.50 lakhs to the wife
- Of this amount, Rs.1.50 lakhs was directly received by the wife
- Rs.3.00 lakhs was deposited into a Sukanya Samraddhi Account opened in the name of their daughter, born in 2017, making her 9 years old at the time of judgment
- The divorce petition lapsed due to non-filing of the second motion on 10.06.2025
- The wife filed an application under Section 125 CrPC on 05.08.2025 seeking monthly maintenance
- The Family Court passed an order on 12.11.2025 directing the petitioner to pay Rs.2.04 lakhs as arrears and Rs.12,000 per month as future maintenance
- The petitioner applied for set-off of Rs.4.50 lakhs on 02.02.2026
- The Family Court, on 18.03.2026, accepted only Rs.1.50 lakhs as set-off, rejecting the Rs.3.00 lakhs deposited in the Sukanya Samraddhi Account
Procedural History
- 15.01.2025: Petitioner transfers Rs.4.50 lakhs to wife - Rs.1.50 lakhs received directly, Rs.3.00 lakhs deposited in Sukanya Samraddhi Account
- 10.06.2025: Second motion for divorce not filed; divorce proceedings abate
- 05.08.2025: Respondent files application under Section 125 CrPC before Family Court
- 12.11.2025: Family Court orders maintenance of Rs.12,000/month and arrears of Rs.2.04 lakhs
- 02.02.2026: Petitioner applies for set-off of Rs.4.50 lakhs
- 18.03.2026: Family Court allows set-off of Rs.1.50 lakhs only; rejects Rs.3.00 lakhs deposited in Sukanya Samraddhi Account
- 04.05.2026: Present petition filed before Madhya Pradesh High Court
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the Family Court’s order dated 18.03.2026 and directed set-off of the full Rs.4.50 lakhs against his maintenance liability under Section 125 CrPC.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a deposit of Rs.3.00 lakhs into a Sukanya Samraddhi Account, which is locked-in until the daughter attains majority, can be treated as actual payment made to the wife for the purpose of set-off against maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner argued that the Rs.4.50 lakhs paid during divorce negotiations were intended as comprehensive settlement for maintenance and alimony. He relied on the principle of equity and contended that since the divorce failed, the entire amount should be adjusted against his statutory maintenance liability. He cited Smt. Sushila Devi v. Smt. Kamla Devi to argue that payments made in anticipation of divorce should be considered in mitigation of future obligations.
For the Respondent
The respondent contended that only Rs.1.50 lakhs was actually received by her and used for daily maintenance. The Rs.3.00 lakhs deposited in the Sukanya Samraddhi Account was not accessible to her or the children, as per the rules of the scheme, which prohibit withdrawal before the daughter turns 18. She argued that maintenance under Section 125 CrPC must be paid in a form that is immediately usable for subsistence, and a locked-in account does not satisfy this requirement.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the Sukanya Samraddhi Account under the Sukanya Samraddhi Yojana, 2015, which mandates a lock-in period until the girl attains 18 years of age, with partial withdrawal permitted only after 18 for higher education and full withdrawal only after 21. The Court emphasized that maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is meant to ensure immediate subsistence, and the law does not recognize future or contingent access to funds as equivalent to actual payment.
"An amount which is sitting in lock-in in Sukanya Samraddhi Account cannot be utilized by the respondents also for their maintenance, though the petitioner may have parted away with the aforesaid amount."
The Court distinguished between disposition of funds and actual receipt by the beneficiary. While the petitioner may have transferred the money, the respondents derived no immediate benefit from it. The Court further noted that the purpose of the Sukanya Samraddhi Account is to secure the daughter’s future, not to discharge the husband’s maintenance liability. The Family Court’s refusal to allow set-off of the Rs.3.00 lakhs was therefore legally sound.
The Court also clarified that the petitioner retains the right to seek adjustment of the Rs.3.00 lakhs in future proceedings - for instance, when the account matures - provided he can demonstrate that the amount was intended as advance maintenance and not merely as a gift or investment for the daughter.
The Verdict
The petition was dismissed. The High Court upheld the Family Court’s order dated 18.03.2026, permitting set-off of only Rs.1.50 lakhs against the maintenance liability. The petitioner remains liable to pay the balance of Rs.54,000 as ordered. The Court clarified that the petitioner may claim set-off of the Rs.3.00 lakhs deposited in the Sukanya Samraddhi Account in any future proceedings, provided he establishes its intended purpose as maintenance and the account has matured.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Maintenance Must Be Paid in Accessible Form
- Practitioners must advise clients that deposits into locked-in accounts (e.g., Sukanya Samraddhi, PPF, NSC) cannot be claimed as set-off against Section 125 CrPC maintenance unless the funds are immediately accessible to the claimant
- Any claim for set-off must demonstrate actual, liquid transfer to the spouse or children - not merely a transfer of funds to a third-party account
Intent Matters, But Access Controls Enforcement
- Courts will examine the intent behind payments made during divorce negotiations, but will prioritize actual availability for subsistence
- Parties should document the purpose of any payment (e.g., via affidavit or settlement deed) to preserve rights for future adjustment
- In future cases, parties may seek court directions to earmark a portion of Sukanya Samraddhi withdrawals for maintenance upon maturity
Procedural Caution for Petitioners
- Petitioners seeking set-off must produce bank statements, receipts, and affidavits proving direct receipt by the spouse
- Deposits into children’s accounts require separate legal justification and cannot be presumed to discharge spousal maintenance obligations
- Applications for set-off under Section 125 CrPC must be filed promptly after payment and supported by contemporaneous evidence
