#Section 125 CrPC

The Gujarat High Court ruled that voluntary PF/ESPP deductions cannot be deducted from gross salary for Section 125 maintenance, as they are the husband's assets, not mandatory charges. Applying the Supreme Court's Harpreet Sawhney precedent, it quashed a net-salary-based order and remanded for fresh computation on gross income, safeguarding the wife's maintenance entitlement.

The Rajasthan High Court ruled that the twelve-month limitation for recovering maintenance arrears under Section 125(3) CrPC begins from the date of the maintenance order, not from when each arrear accrued. This allows claimants to recover arrears for up to a year preceding the order, even if the arrears span a longer period, benefiting maintenance seekers and defining the liability of payers.

The Calcutta High Court held that suppression of material facts and lack of clean hands disentitle a wife to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C, setting aside the denial and ordering a trial, thus upholding clean hands doctrine in maintenance cases.

The Calcutta HC affirmed a monthly maintenance of Rs. 3,000 for a major son with 70% disability, ruling that the father's obligation under Section 125(1)(c) CrPC does not cease on attaining majority. The decision reinforces the statutory right of disabled adult children to support, impacting families across West Bengal.

The Uttarakhand High Court upheld ₹20,000 monthly maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, ruling that a husband who failed to pursue a nullity suit is estopped from denying the marriage. It also held that oral testimony alone can establish the husband's income for maintenance purposes.

The Uttarakhand High Court held that a husband who voluntarily assumed family responsibility must pay maintenance to a step-son, even without a biological relationship. It also increased monthly maintenance to ₹8,000 for the wife and ₹6,000 for the minor daughter. The ruling extends Section 125 CrPC protection to non-biological dependents.

The Supreme Court restored the Family Court’s interim maintenance of Rs 30,000 per month for each of the two minor daughters, overturning the High Court’s cut to Rs 15,000. It held that a wife’s professional earnings cannot be used to halve the husband’s liability under Section 125 CrPC.

The Calcutta High Court reinstated a monthly maintenance order, ruling that Section 125 CrPC proceedings are summary and do not demand civil proof of a valid marriage. This prevents destitute spouses from losing relief on technical grounds and clarifies the evidentiary burden in welfare cases.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that a compact-disc and transcript alleging the wife’s adultery can be used as secondary evidence and must be considered when deciding interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, overturning the Family Court’s order. This establishes that secretly captured electronic material is permissible evidence in maintenance disputes, affecting spouses seeking or contesting maintenance.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court affirmed a Rs 4,000-per-month maintenance order for a divorced wife, holding that Section 125 CrPC guarantees support until she remarries, regardless of the husband’s financial-hardship pleas. This safeguards divorced women’s livelihood until they enter a new marriage.

Delhi High Court sustained a Family Court directive for ₹15,000 monthly maintenance to the wife and ₹10,000 to the child, with a 5% annual increment, affirming the husband's capacity to pay under Section 125 CrPC. The ruling reinforces judicial discretion in adjusting maintenance for inflation and changing circumstances.

Karnataka High Court rules husband's obligation to pay interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC cannot be denied solely due to wife's educational qualifications or employment status. Sets Rs.10,000 monthly interim maintenance with arrears to be paid within one month and main petition disposed of within six months.

Allahabad HC set aside a maintenance order and directed the Family Court to follow Supreme Court’s Rajnesh vs. Neha guidelines requiring parties to file affidavits of assets and liabilities before interim relief is granted. The court ordered compliance within 15 days and adjudication within 30 days, emphasizing procedural fairness in Section 125 CrPC applications.

Bombay High Court holds that maintenance under Section 125 CrPC cannot exceed a wife's demonstrated needs, especially when she owns assets worth crores. The court stayed a Rs.50,000 monthly order, emphasizing the statutory requirement of 'inability to maintain herself' as a precondition for relief.

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that execution applications for maintenance arrears under Section 125 CrPC cannot claim amounts accrued more than 12 months before the filing date, invalidating recovery warrants for longer periods. This clarifies a critical procedural limit for maintenance recipients and prevents indefinite accumulation of arrears, ensuring timely enforcement and protecting payers from stale claims.