Latest Supreme Court Judgments on Maintenance (2024–2026) – Complete Legal Guide
Introduction
India’s maintenance law has undergone sweeping transformation between 2024 and 2026. From the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling extending maintenance rights to Muslim women under secular law, to a 2026 judgment holding that DNA-proven non-paternity extinguishes a maintenance obligation, the courts have reshaped the financial rights of spouses, children, and parents across religious and social boundaries. Simultaneously, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023 — which came into force on July 1, 2024 — replaced Section 125 CrPC with Section 144 BNSS, introducing stricter timelines and procedural reforms. This article examines the most consequential Supreme Court judgments on maintenance from 2024 to 2026, the doctrinal shifts they signal, and what they mean for litigants and legal practitioners.
1. The Legislative Shift: Section 125 CrPC to Section 144 BNSS
Before examining the judicial pronouncements, it is essential to understand the legislative backdrop. Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is the direct successor to Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). It came into effect on July 1, 2024. While the substantive entitlement to maintenance — for wives, minor children, major disabled children, and dependent parents — remains unchanged, Section 144 BNSS introduced a critical procedural improvement: interim maintenance applications must now be disposed of within 60 days from the date of service of notice.
This 60-day mandate for interim orders is a significant departure from the old CrPC, which had no statutory time limit. The objective is to ensure that financially vulnerable dependants receive immediate relief without being forced to endure protracted litigation. Courts have wide discretion on quantum — there is no statutory cap — and may direct payment from the date of the application itself.
| KEY CHANGE | Section 125 CrPC → Section 144 BNSS (w.e.f. July 1, 2024). Interim maintenance must now be decided within 60 days of notice. All substantive rights remain intact. |
2. Mohd. Abdul Samad v. State of Telangana (2024): Muslim Women and Section 125 CrPC
The most far-reaching maintenance judgment of 2024 is undoubtedly Mohd. Abdul Samad v. State of Telangana, decided on July 10, 2024. A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih delivered separate but concurring judgments, unanimously holding that a Muslim woman is entitled to claim maintenance from her husband under Section 125 CrPC (now Section 144 BNSS), regardless of whether she has also been granted remedies under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.
The Court declared Section 125 CrPC a “religion-neutral” provision applicable to all married women regardless of faith. It expressly rejected the argument that personal law remedies under Muslim law — iddat maintenance and mahr — foreclosed the right to claim under the secular criminal law provision. Divorced Muslim women who have not remarried retain the right to seek maintenance under Section 144 BNSS until remarriage.
| CITATION | Mohd. Abdul Samad v. State of Telangana (2024) — Supreme Court, July 10, 2024. Bench: Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih. |
Key Principles Established:
- Section 125 CrPC / Section 144 BNSS is religion-neutral and applies to all married women.
- A divorced Muslim woman may claim maintenance beyond the iddat period.
- Personal law remedies do not extinguish the secular maintenance right.
- Courts must not use a wife’s non-compliance with a restitution decree as an automatic bar to maintenance unless evidence proves unjustified refusal.
3. Maintenance as a Legal Duty, Not a Benefit (2025)
Building on the 2024 ruling, the Supreme Court in ABC v. XYZ (2025 INSC 129), decided in February 2025 by Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, further crystallised a foundational principle: the right to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is not a benefit received by a wife but a legal and moral duty owed by the husband. This reframing is significant — it shifts the burden of moral responsibility squarely onto the obligor, removing any social stigma associated with a wife claiming maintenance.
The bench also addressed the interaction between criminal maintenance proceedings and civil matrimonial decrees, reiterating that findings in civil proceedings (such as a decree for restitution of conjugal rights) are not automatically binding in criminal maintenance proceedings. Both must be decided independently on their own evidence.
| PRINCIPLE | “The right to maintenance u/s 125 CrPC is not a benefit received by a wife but a legal and moral duty owed by the husband.” — SC, 2025 INSC 129. |
4. DNA Evidence and Paternity: A Landmark 2026 Ruling
In Nikhat Parveen @ Khushboo Khatoon v. Rafique @ Shillu (2026 LSI (SC) 100), the Supreme Court delivered a doctrinally transformative judgment: where DNA evidence conclusively establishes that the respondent is not the biological father of a child, no maintenance obligation can be imposed upon him under Section 125 CrPC / Section 144 BNSS.
For decades, Indian courts relied on the legal presumption under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act — that a child born during a valid marriage is conclusively presumed to be legitimate — to sidestep DNA evidence in maintenance disputes. The 2026 judgment marks a decisive break: scientific truth must prevail when it provides certainty. Where science establishes that a man is not the biological father, the law cannot fictionally compel him to bear a financial obligation.
Critically, the Court clarified that this ruling should not be read as an endorsement of routine DNA testing in maintenance cases. The bar for ordering DNA tests remains high — it must be genuinely in issue and necessary for justice. The judgment is a doctrinal correction, not a tool for husbands to routinely challenge paternity.
| CITATION | Nikhat Parveen @ Khushboo Khatoon v. Rafique @ Shillu — 2026 LSI (SC) 100. Landmark ruling on DNA evidence and maintenance liability. |
5. Periodic Increases in Maintenance: The 5% Rule (2025)
In a significant July 2025 ruling, the Supreme Court held that permanent alimony/maintenance should include a periodic escalation clause. The bench directed that maintenance be increased by 5% every two years, setting a precedent for courts and parties to factor in the cost of living and inflationary pressures when fixing maintenance amounts. This approach prevents the real value of maintenance from being eroded over time and reduces the need for repeated litigation to revise quantum.
This decision reinforces the principle articulated in the earlier Rajnesh v. Neha (2020) guidelines, which had standardised that maintenance must be awarded from the date of filing the application and established a uniform framework for affidavit of assets disclosure in all maintenance cases.
6. High Courts Expanding the Jurisprudence
While Supreme Court judgments set binding precedent, High Courts across India have added important nuances between 2024 and 2026:
- Husband’s High Income Is Not a Free Pass: The Bombay High Court held that high earnings alone do not automatically entitle a spouse to a proportionally high maintenance. Actual needs and standard of living must be independently assessed. (MMM v. AAA, Bombay HC, 2024)
- Foreign Income Cannot Be Auto-Converted: The Delhi High Court ruled that a husband’s foreign income cannot be mechanically converted at current exchange rates for maintenance computation without considering purchasing power and cost of living in the country of residence. (Mrs. D.J. v. Mr. S.J., Delhi HC, December 2025)
- Live-In Partners: The Allahabad High Court reiterated that maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is not available to women in live-in relationships, as they do not acquire the legal status of a “wife” under the provision. Separate remedies under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 remain available.
- Husband’s Access to Wife’s Income Details: The Central Information Commission (CIC) upheld a husband’s right to access a wife’s income and tax details from the Income Tax Department for the purpose of maintenance proceedings, recognizing the asymmetry of financial information in matrimonial disputes.
7. Quick Reference: Key Judgments at a Glance
| Case / Year | Issue | Key Ruling |
| Mohd. Abdul Samad (2024) | Muslim women’s maintenance right | Section 125 CrPC applies to all women regardless of religion; divorced Muslim women entitled beyond iddat period |
| ABC v. XYZ (2025 INSC 129) | Nature of maintenance right | Maintenance is a legal duty of husband, not a benefit granted to wife |
| SC July 2025 Ruling | Periodic revision of maintenance | 5% increase every two years to account for inflation; reduces repeat litigation |
| Nikhat Parveen (2026 LSI SC 100) | DNA evidence and paternity | DNA-proven non-paternity extinguishes maintenance obligation; science prevails over legal fiction |
| Rajnesh v. Neha (2020) Guidelines | Enforcement and dating of orders | Maintenance from date of filing application; uniform asset disclosure; avoid double recovery |
Conclusion
The period 2024 to 2026 marks a watershed in Indian maintenance jurisprudence. Three themes dominate: inclusion, certainty, and accountability. The extension of Section 125 CrPC/Section 144 BNSS to Muslim women, the recharacterisation of maintenance as a legal duty rather than a beneficent grant, and the introduction of enforceable timelines for interim relief all expand the protective reach of maintenance law. Simultaneously, the 2026 DNA paternity ruling introduces a necessary corrective where scientific truth demands it. Together, these judgments signal that India’s highest court is committed to making maintenance law both more equitable in its reach and more certain in its application.
Practitioners must remain alert to the transition from CrPC to BNSS, the 60-day interim timeline, and the evolving judicial approach to income disclosure and enforcement. For litigants, the message is clear: maintenance is a right, not a concession — and the Supreme Court will protect it.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Q: What replaced Section 125 CrPC for maintenance claims in India?
A: Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023 replaced Section 125 CrPC with effect from July 1, 2024. The substantive rights — entitlement of wives, children, and parents — remain the same, but Section 144 BNSS now mandates that interim maintenance applications be disposed of within 60 days of service of notice.
Q: Can a Muslim woman claim maintenance under secular law after divorce?
A: Yes. The Supreme Court in Mohd. Abdul Samad v. State of Telangana (July 2024) definitively held that Section 125 CrPC (now Section 144 BNSS) is religion-neutral and applies to Muslim women. A divorced Muslim woman who has not remarried can claim maintenance under this provision, irrespective of her rights under Muslim personal law, including the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.
Q: From what date is maintenance payable under Indian law?
A: Per the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha (2020), maintenance should ordinarily be awarded from the date of filing the application, not from the date of the order. This prevents husbands from delaying proceedings to reduce liability.
Q: Can a DNA test negate a husband’s maintenance obligation towards a child?
A: Yes, under the 2026 Supreme Court ruling in Nikhat Parveen v. Rafique (2026 LSI SC 100), where DNA evidence conclusively establishes that the man is not the biological father, he cannot be compelled to pay maintenance for that child. However, courts will not routinely order DNA tests — the issue of paternity must be genuinely contested and the test must be necessary for justice.
Q: Is there a statutory limit on the amount of maintenance a court can award?
A: No. Under Section 144 BNSS (formerly Section 125 CrPC), there is no statutory cap on the maintenance amount. Courts exercise wide discretion based on the respondent’s income and assets, the claimant’s reasonable needs, the standard of living during the marriage, and any independent income of the claimant.
Q: Does a wife’s refusal to live with her husband affect her right to maintenance?
A: Yes, but not automatically. Section 125(4) CrPC (now Section 144 BNSS) provides that a wife who refuses to live with her husband without sufficient cause is not entitled to maintenance. However, courts assess whether the refusal was justified — for example, due to cruelty, dowry demands, or domestic violence — in which case the wife retains her right to maintenance. A mere decree for restitution of conjugal rights does not by itself disentitle a wife.
Q: Will maintenance orders be automatically revised for inflation?
A: Following the Supreme Court’s July 2025 ruling, courts are now encouraged to build a periodic escalation clause — such as a 5% increase every two years — into maintenance orders. This reduces repeat litigation for enhancement and ensures the real purchasing value of maintenance is preserved.
Q: Can a husband avoid paying maintenance by claiming his wife earns an income?
A: Not automatically. Courts have held that a wife’s independent income is a factor, but only where it is sufficient for her to maintain herself in the manner she was accustomed to. A high-earning husband cannot use his wife’s modest salary as a complete defence. The Bombay High Court also ruled that a husband’s high income does not automatically entitle a wife to maximum maintenance — actual needs must be proved.
Q: Can parents claim maintenance from adult children under the new BNSS?
A: Yes. Section 144 BNSS retains the right of parents who are unable to maintain themselves to claim maintenance from their adult children who have sufficient means. Both father and mother can claim this right independently.
Q: What happens if a maintenance order is not complied with?
A: A defaulting husband can be compelled through a warrant for recovery of arrears, attachment of property, or even civil imprisonment. Under Section 144 BNSS and the Rajnesh v. Neha guidelines, courts have wide enforcement powers and can ensure compliance across jurisdictions in India.
Written by Adv. Karan Dua, practising in Delhi, focuses on matrimonial and family law matters.