No Limitation For Seeking Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC, Wife's Right Can't Be Lost By Delay: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has held that there is no period of limitation for filing a maintenance petition under Section 125 CrPC and such a plea cannot be rejected solely on ground of delay. 

Justice Chillakur Sumalatha set aside a family court order which had dismissed a maintenance petition filed by a wife and her daughter solely on the ground of delay.

The High Court noted that the relevant provision does not mention a time period within which a maintenance plea must be filed, and that such a legitimate right to seek maintenance cannot be deprived merely because the wife or child failed to approach the court immediately upon neglect or refusal by the person bound to maintain them.

“Chapter IX Cr.PC which deals with order for maintenance of wives, children and parents, commencing from Section 125 and continuing till Section 128, nowhere mentions that the claim of maintenance has to be raised either by wife or children or parents within such time of refusal by the husband or father or son or daughter as the case may be. Thus, it is clear that they are entitled to claim maintenance by filing necessary application before the Competent Court at any time till they are entitled to receive such maintenance,” the Court said.

The case stemmed from the marriage of the first petitioner and the respondent-husband. Out of the wedlock, the second petitioner was born on June 19, 1999. After a few years, the respondent started demanding dowry and subsequently drove the petitioners out of the matrimonial house in 2001. The wife resorted to doing coolie work to support her daughter while the respondent entered into a second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage, earning a substantial income through agriculture and a provision store.

In 2004, the wife registered a maintenance case against the respondent, but it was dismissed due to non-prosecution.

Subsequently, in 2022, the petitioners filed a maintenance claim under Section 125 of the CrPC before the Family Court, Mysuru. The family court noted that the marital relationship was established between the parties and that the DNA testing confirmed the respondent's paternity over the second petitioner. Despite these findings, the family court dismissed the petition on July 5, 2025, reasoning that the petitioners' failure to take legal action for over two decades (since 2001) cast doubt on the bonafides of their claim and inferred that the wife had “ratified” the respondent's actions. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioners approached the High Court.

The High Court held that the petitioners were entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC as there was no period of limitation barring their claim.

“As there is no limitation for filing a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance, even if the petitioners have not filed any such petition for maintenance as could be found through Exs.R1 and R2, yet they are entitled to claim maintenance by filing a petition subsequently,” the High Court said.

It added, “Therefore, this Court is of the view that setting aside the impugned order, the matter is liable to be remanded to the Family Court, Mysuru to subject the evidence produced to scrutiny and to pass appropriate orders. On merits, it is made clear that first petitioner is entitled for maintenance to be received from the respondent herein. No further enquiry in that regard is required. Family Court shall fix the quantum.”

Accordingly, the High Court remanded the case to the Family Court, directing it to determine the quantum of maintenance of the wife and whether the second petitioner was entitled to receive maintenance from the respondent within three months.