Court directs fresh hearing on maintenance claims under Section 125 CrPC, emphasizing divorced wife’s entitlement till remarriage and child’s maintenance till majority
In a significant judgment delivered on September 18, 2026, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) under Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra set aside the Family Court’s order rejecting the maintenance claim of Smt. Suneeta, a divorced wife, and her minor son from her former husband, an Indian Army personnel. The court held that the outright rejection of maintenance was legally unsustainable and remanded the matter for a fresh adjudication, reinforcing the legal position that a divorced wife remains entitled to maintenance from the date of divorce until remarriage if she is unable to support herself.
The dispute arose when Smt. Suneeta filed a petition under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) seeking maintenance from Rajesh Kumar Yadav, her husband, who was serving as a Naik/Driver in the EME Corps of the Indian Army. The Family Court had dismissed her claim, citing insufficient proof for her need to live separately and the fact that 15% of the husband’s salary was being deducted by the army authorities and paid to her and their son for maintenance. The husband had also secured a decree of divorce against Smt. Suneeta on grounds of desertion.
The High Court carefully examined the facts and legal principles, noting that although the decree of divorce was passed on the ground of desertion, the divorced wife retains the status of “wife” for limited purposes under Section 125 CrPC (Explanation b) and is entitled to maintenance if she has not remarried and cannot maintain herself. The Court further clarified that the husband’s salary deductions made by the army for the maintenance of the son did not absolve him of his responsibility towards his ex-wife, especially after his discharge from service.
The judgment also addressed the maintenance of the minor son, directing that the child is entitled to maintenance until he attains majority, excluding the period during which maintenance was already received through army authorities. The contradictory evidence about whether the 15% salary deduction was meant solely for the child or jointly for the wife and child was noted, and the court instructed the Family Court to clarify this during the rehearing.
Importantly, the Court directed both parties to file affidavits disclosing their assets, income, and liabilities in compliance with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021), ensuring transparency and fairness in the fresh proceedings. An interim maintenance amount of Rs. 4,000 per month was ordered to be paid by the husband during the pendency of the rehearing.
This ruling reiterates the protective scope of Section 125 CrPC, emphasizing that maintenance rights survive even after divorce, thereby safeguarding the interests of divorced women and their children who lack independent means of livelihood.
Bottom Line:
Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC - Rejection of wife's maintenance claim in toto held unsustainable - Divorced wife remains entitled to claim maintenance from date of divorce till remarriage if unable to maintain herself - Child entitled to maintenance till majority, excluding period for which maintenance was already received through Army authorities - Matter remanded for fresh decision with direction to file affidavits of assets, income and liabilities as per Rajnesh v. Neha.
Statutory provision(s):
Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; Section 19(4) Family Courts Act, 1984; Section 13 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Smt. Suneeta v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(Lucknow) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2983403
