Maintenance of Wives, Children and Parents (ss.144–147 BNSS) — BNSS (Criminal Law II) Notes

Maintenance of Wives, Children and Parents (ss.144–147 BNSS)

A destitute wife, an abandoned child, an aged parent left to beg — a civil suit would take years they do not have. So the Sanhita hands a summary, quasi-civil remedy to a Magistrate: order the person with means to pay a monthly allowance, and enforce it with the criminal court’s blunt machinery. It is not a punishment; its object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution.

The right of a wife, child or parent to be maintained is in its nature a civil right, but Chapter X (ss.144–147 BNSS) hands it to a Magistrate for speed. It is a summary remedy, it does not bar a civil suit or personal-law claim, and its summary character explains why the order can be altered when circumstances change.

A. Who may claim (s.144(1) [s.125(1) CrPC])

A person of sufficient means who neglects or refuses to maintain:

1. His wife, unable to maintain herself;
2. His legitimate or illegitimate minor child, and a major child who is unable to maintain itself due to a physical or mental abnormality;
3. His father or mother, unable to maintain themselves.

“Wife” includes a divorced woman who has not remarried (Explanation to s.144(1)). Where the marriage is void, the woman is not a legally wedded “wife” — but courts have extended relief where the woman was deceived (Badshah v. Urmila, 2014). A daughter with sufficient means is equally liable to maintain her parents (Vijaya Arbat v. Kashirao, 1987).

B. Grounds to live separately (s.144(3) proviso)

A wife is entitled to live separately and still claim if the husband is guilty of cruelty, keeps a mistress or marries again, etc. She is not entitled if she is living in adultery, refuses without sufficient cause to live with him, or they live separately by mutual consent.

C. Alteration and cancellation (s.146 [s.127 CrPC])

The order may be altered on a change of circumstances, and cancelled if a divorced wife remarries, or receives the whole sum due under personal law, or surrenders her right.

D. Enforcement (s.147 [s.128 CrPC])

A maintenance order may be enforced anywhere in India; arrears are recovered by a warrant for levy of a fine, and for wilful non-payment the Magistrate may impose imprisonment up to one month for each month’s default.

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — the void second marriage

Facts. A marries B without dissolving his subsisting marriage with C, and then neglects B. B claims maintenance.

Rule. Only a legally wedded wife may claim under s.144; a marriage during the subsistence of an earlier one is void, so B is strictly not a “wife”. But where the man concealed his existing marriage and deceived the woman, the Supreme Court (Badshah v. Urmila, 2014) allowed maintenance to prevent the man profiting from his own fraud.

Apply. On the bare rule B is not a “wife”; on the Badshah principle, if A deceived B, she may still be granted maintenance.

Conclusion. Answer both: the void-marriage decoy (neglect is admitted, but the marriage is void) versus the equitable relief where the woman was deceived.

Section 144(1) BNSS: “If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain — (a) his wife, unable to maintain herself; (b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child… (c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is… unable to maintain itself; or (d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself, a Magistrate of the first class may… order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance…”

In Simple Terms: A man with means who abandons his wife, child or parents can be ordered by a Magistrate to pay them a monthly allowance.

flowchart TD
    ROOT["Maintenance ss.144-147<br/>summary, quasi-civil remedy"]:::root
    ROOT --> A["Who: wife (incl. divorced), minor/disabled child, parents s.144"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> B["Grounds to live apart s.144(3):<br/>cruelty, second marriage, mistress"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> C["Bars: adultery, no just cause,<br/>mutual consent"]:::sidebox
    ROOT --> D["Alter/cancel s.146:<br/>remarriage cancels"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> E["Enforce s.147: anywhere in India;<br/>warrant + jail up to 1 month/default"]:::leaf
    classDef root fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#000,stroke-width:1px,color:#000;
    classDef leaf fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;
    classDef sidebox fill:#FDE7C9,stroke:#B45309,color:#000;
    linkStyle default stroke:#888,stroke-width:1px;

Case Laws

• Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamla Devi (1975) — maintenance is to prevent destitution; the wife’s own income is relevant to the quantum.
• Vijaya Arbat v. Kashirao Rajaram Sawai (1987) — a daughter (married or not) with sufficient means is liable to maintain her parents.
• Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse (2014) — a woman deceived into a void second marriage may claim maintenance; the provision is a social-justice measure.
• Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985) — a divorced Muslim wife may claim maintenance under s.125 CrPC (now s.144 BNSS).
• Rajnesh v. Neha (2020) — laid down comprehensive guidelines on maintenance, disclosure of assets and enforcement.

Back to Top

📄 Full notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past KSLU questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · 10 Solved Problems · All BNSS (Criminal Law II) topics