Grievance against Maintainence orders

The law entitles both of the parties in a trial with equal opportunities to justify their claim/defence. However, at times the Individuals so engaged with the case consider themselves aggrieved out of the decision by the court, for which they’re ,with limitations, further provided with power to challenge. One of such proceedings is in regard with the claim to maintenance under section 125 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973. The topic of discussion will focus on whether husband, who has been imposed with liability to pay a sum as a maintenance, can claim for revision to reduce or nullify the orders? And if the answer is in positive, then what are the legal options that the Individual imposed with liability to pay is left with? 


1) Appeals – An appeal against the order passed under section 125 of CrPC is not maintainable on the initial note itself which concludes the answer to negate the possibilities.
2) Revision proceedings – One of the considerable options the aggrieved husband is usually left with is revision proceedings in the higher court. To overview the opt-ability of limitations the merits of the case in hand has always be looked upto provided not everytime this option is available to the aggrieved party. Analysing the scope of entertaining the case from scratch, the hon’ble High courts are usually not inherent with unlimited powers to adjudicate the matter already decided and only an impacting error can make it to the mark to fetch the opportunity of being heard once again by different bench on higher level of courts.


1) In the case of Kamla Devi V. Mool Raj , It was clarified that, The High court will not interfere in the finding of the lower court if the evidence is properly appreciated on merits. 
2) In the case of Munesh Kumari V. sheo Raj Singh,    The Hon’ble court concluded that on finding the actual position that the husband failed to provide the wife with maintenance in actual, the higher court cannot interfere with the decisions of the lower court which are apt and on point with regards to law applicability and fact check.

3) In the case of Santosh(smt) V. Naresh Pal  the Hon’ble High court stated that only when the findings of the high court contradict the decision of the lower court is when the interference will be legally overlooked upto.
4) The Patna High Court in the case of Masud Ahmed v. the State of Bihar, where the petitioner approached the High Court for setting aside the order which had been passed by the trial court directing the petitioner to pay the maintenance of Rupees 3000 per month to the ex-wife and Rupees 2000 per month as the maintenance for children. The petitioner had argued that his ex-wife, a teacher in a school, had been earning quite well. He contended that Section 125 of CrPC could only be invoked when the wife is not able to maintain herself. But, in this case, she had been earning sufficiently well by working in the school. The court in this case held that the wife should not be provided with the maintenance as after the divorce, the wife had sufficient means to maintain herself and therefore the court set aside the order for giving Rupees 3000 per month as the maintenance. 


Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, deems to protect the right to maintenance of the wife, and the parents to get equitable amount of sum as a curb for their dependency. In the recent past active reaction against the tentative scope of revision against the order passed under Section 125 has increased in the name of grievance the higher courts further leading to accept the revision applications under Section 397 for providing claimed reliefs to the aggrieved party for the same. There do not exist any settled rule in regard to redressal criteria or pre requisite by the courts , leaving it entirely dependent on the facts and circumstances of each case as different. The fact of maintenance has always been highly regarded to the scenario of dependency factor of the Sections usually considered as vulnerable – Wife, children and aged parents. However, with the availability of options the chances to claim justice increase but at the same time the options must not be misused with and initially the parties must try to resolve things on their own as a matter of prudency suggests.

Aishwarya Says:

I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.

If you are interested in participating in the same, do let me know.

Do follow me on FacebookTwitter  Youtube and Instagram.

The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.

If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at

We also have a Facebook Group Restarter Moms for Mothers or Women who would like to rejoin their careers post a career break or women who are enterpreneurs.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.