Right to Maintenance (Law)

To combat the social injustice and prevent the neglected people from falling into destitution, a universal legal weapon has been provided under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, which is not bound by the shackles of caste and religion and vests the right to claim maintenance for those people.

Who can claim maintenance under Sec. 125?
• Wife: Under Hindu law, for the wife to claim maintenance, marriage should have been solemnized in accordance with the Hindu rites and rituals and be valid under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Under Muslim law, women have the right to claim maintenance even after the conclusion of her iddat period. But marriage should be valid under Muslim Personal law.

Place of claim – where husband or wife resides or where the husband is physically present currently or where husband last resided with his wife.

• Children: Both legitimate and illegitimate male and female children can file for maintenance until they reach the age of majority. But adult unmarried daughters can claim for maintenance from their fathers.

• Parents: Mother and father can also claim maintenance from any of their children or all of them.

Place of Claim – where they reside or the child resides.

Important Points to remember while claiming maintenance:
• The person claiming maintenance should be incapable or unqualified to earn.
• The person must have neglected the claiming party or refused to pay maintenance.
• Burden of proof lies with the husband that he did not refuse or neglect to pay maintenance.
• The standard of living matters the most. Husband is legally obliged to restore the previous (before separation) standard of living off her wife. It should not be more or less than the amount required to restore the same.
• The interpretation of live-in relationships has shifted from a casual look to a serious one where a valid marriage may be presumed.
• Maintenance is usually on a monthly basis.
• A financially unsound or physically incapable person would not be forced to provide remuneration.
• Proceedings u/s 125 are civil in nature.

Filing claim for Maintenance under Sec. 125 (Process):
1. The claim for maintenance is filed before the Judicial Magistrate 1st class. 
2. The period of limitation is 1 year from the date the maintenance fell due.

Grounds of Rejection of Claim:
• If the woman has committed adultery;
• If she was living separately from her husband without any just cause;
• If she has remarried;
• If both of them were living separately with mutual consent;
• If she was aware of her husband’s first marriage which is still in force.

Statutory law References:
Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

Important Judgments:
Chanmuniya v. Chanmuniya Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha and Anr (2011) 1 SCC 141
Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum 1985 SCR (3) 844
Danial Latifi v. Union of India 2001 (7) SCC 740 
Shah Bano v. Imran Khan AIR 2010 SC 740
Mansi Vohra v. Ramesh Vohra CRL.M.C. 2474/2012

If not complied with the order for maintenance, the court-
• can issue a warrant for levying the amount due;
• can attach the property and sell to recover such due amount;
• may award imprisonment for a maximum of 1 month after the execution of the warrant or until payment if sooner made.

SC’s landmark decision to Protect Online Freedom of Speech

Before 2015, no sane person would have thought that the knees of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 would go weak and that too against one of the most powerful persons of Maharashtra. In March 2015, Supreme Court of India struck down Sec. 66A which restricted the freedom of speech and expression under Art. 19(1)(a) while upholding the people’s right to know.

How it all began

In 2012, two girls allegedly posted some negative comments against the total shutdown in Mumbai in pursuance to the death of Shiv Sena leader the late Bal Thackeray. After their arrest, a Bristol University astrophysics graduate, Shreya Singhal, filed a PIL before the Supreme Court of India where she challenged the undue restrictions on online speech which had been acknowledged under Sec. 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Section 66A reads as follows: “Any person who sends by any means of a computer resource-

a)      any information that is grossly offensive or has a menacing character; or

b)      any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine.”

Contentions of the Parties to the Case

Section 66A was not originally enacted with the statute of 2000 but inserted by way of 2009 amendment. The petitioner’s contention circled around the fact that restrictions under Sec. 66A are in clear violation of the right to free speech and expression enshrined under Art. 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Causing of annoyance, hatred, danger, obstruction, insult, ill-will, insult, criminal intimidation, injury, inconvenience are not hit by the conditions of Art. 19(2). The public has the right to know various kinds of views on a particular topic. However, it was countered by the respondents with the contention that the legislature is in the best position to understand and cater to the needs of the people.

The Judgment

The Apex Court placed focus upon what is the content of “freedom of speech and expression”. It stated three concepts in this regard – first is a discussion, second is advocacy and third are incitement. Discussion and advocacy form the core of Art 19(1)(a) but when it effects incitement, Art. 19(2) comes into play. However, what may be offensive to one may not be to other. It observed that the whole discussion centered around public disorder and ‘reasonable restrictions’ can be interpreted on the lines of Chintaman Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [1950] S.C.R. 759, Mohd. Faruk v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., [1970] 1 S.C.R. 156. It also stated that written words causing inconvenience, danger, annoyance, etc. does not count as an offense itself and are vague and overbroad. The court further observed that it is bound by the law laid down in Ram Manohar Lohia’s case [1960] 2 S.C.R. 821 and held that “Section 66A is unconstitutional also on the ground that it takes within its sweep protected speech and speech that is innocent in nature and is liable therefore to be used in such a way as to have a chilling effect on free speech and would, therefore, have to be struck down on the ground of overbreadth.” The bench of Justice J Chelameswar and Justice Rohinton F Nariman further supplemented their findings by stating that government’s assurance to prevent misuse of the provision will not matter as governments come and go.

Surprisingly, a data released by National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) in 2015 showed that 2,402 people were arrested under Sec. 66A in 2014.

AIBA recommends Radical Reforms in Judiciary

The 11-point Radical List:
All India Bar Association (AIBA) chairman, Adish C Aggarwala, submitted a reformatory 11-points suggestion list to the Prime Minister Mr. Narendra Modi and former Chief Justice of India Mr. H. L. Dattu in the month of April 2015. It was given as a radical tool to pump up judiciary’s functional efficiency.
The noteworthy points of the Charter were –
• Financial independence of Judiciary is given so that it is not dependent on the government to expand infrastructure.
• In regards to National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), the two eminent personalities in question should never be amongst lawyers, judges, and judiciary. Moreover, the Committee of Prime Minister, Chief Justice of India and the Leader of Opposition should appoint those two eminent personalities to ensure their independence and impartiality.
• The appointment to the Supreme Court as a Judge should be driven by proportional representation of the Indian states in accordance with their population.
• Only sitting judges should be appointed to Tribunals and Commissions and retired judges should be kept away from such posts. To enable such appointments, sanctioned posts of judges should be increased.
• The retirement age of the judges at all three levels should be increased – from 65 to 68 in the case of a Supreme Court judge, from 62 to 65 for a High Court judge and 60 to 62 for all subordinate judges.
• Seniority should be the only basis for the promotion of a subordinate judge to the High Court and from High Court to Supreme Court. If a judge is not appropriate for such promotion, his employment as a judge should be terminated immediately.
• Four benches of the Supreme Court should be established in the east, west, north-east and south India. Apart from bringing justice to the easy access of the litigants, it would move the justices to places where their relatives are not practicing.
• Appointment of high court judges as Chief Justice of another High Court should be prevented altogether as they are totally dependent upon the local judges for administration.
• Video-graphing of all cases should be mandatory which would subsequently become part of the case file only and would also act as a regulator over the litigants, lawyers, and judges.
• Live broadcast of all the cases should be available on its official website.
• Judicial clerkship of 1 year should be pre-mandated for practicing as a lawyer. The salary for such time period should be Rs 25000/- per month.

The list was submitted with all the relevant details to the above-mentioned points in order to bring transformation in the Indian judiciary.

Victimization under 498A IPC

When a complaint, true or false, is filed by a wife against her husband and against relatives of her husband in a police station, police officials usually call both parties to settle down the dispute or pass on the complaint to the women cell so that both parties can try to reach a compromise to the satisfaction of complainant. 

If the parties are still unable to solve the dispute amicably, then the women cell usually direct parties to go for mediation. If the dispute remains unresolved, then the matter comes back to women cell then police officials register it as FIR. 

Important points: -

1. If the accused is not arrested, then he should file for anticipatory bail as early as he can.
2. If any of the accused is arrested, then they can apply for regular bail.
3. If the arrest warrants are issued, the accused must surrender as soon as he can before the police. It becomes easy to defend the case in the court if accused has willfully surrendered.
4. Sometime these accusations can be placed out of sheer outburst of the sense of revenge, and wife may realize the futility of her actions with the passage of time, therefore husband shouldn’t put more efforts to expedite the judicial process and must wait for things to settle down and let them take its normal course.  


Statutory law Reference.

1. 498A IPC

Prevention of Arrest

1. When a FIR is lodged against husband and his relatives, one should apply for an anticipatory bail for all involved. Even if  one of accused gets the anticipatory bail, others can substantiate their claim on that basis
2. Try to put your case for mediation with the help of your lawyer.
3. Try to schedule your case for Lok Adalat hearing with the help of your lawyer so that it may lead to a compromise.


4. Try your best to negotiate and settle the dispute with the accuser and her parents.
5. If the husband and his relatives have not committed any offense such as demand for dowry or physical abuse, then he has every right to defend his rights and court take cognizance of unsubstantiated accusations.