Back
No Limitation For Filing Maintenance Petition Under Section 125 CrPC: Karnataka High Court
The has unequivocally held that there is for filing a under , and a wife's or child's legitimate claim for maintenance cannot be rejected solely on the ground of delay. The ruling came from Justice Chillakur Sumalatha, who set aside a family court order that had dismissed a maintenance plea on that very basis.
The Long Road to Justice
The case involved Smt. Bhagya and her daughter Deepika N., who sought maintenance from Nagegowda, Bhagya's estranged husband. The couple's marriage was registered in , and their daughter was born on . However, according to Bhagya, Nagegowda began demanding dowry shortly after the birth and eventually drove both of them out of the matrimonial home in . Forced to fend for herself and her daughter, Bhagya started doing coolie work while Nagegowda remarried and continued his business, allegedly earning a substantial income.
In , Bhagya had filed a maintenance case (Crl.Misc.78/ ) but it was in . Undeterred, she filed a fresh petition in (Crl.Misc.251/ ) before the . Despite finding that a marital relationship existed between the parties and that DNA evidence confirmed Nagegowda's paternity over Deepika, the family court dismissed the petition on . The sole reason: Bhagya's delay of over two decades in pursuing her claim, which the court felt cast doubt on the of her plea.
No Time Bar for Neglect
The High Court firmly rejected this reasoning. After examining
and the entire
, Justice Sumalatha observed that the provision
"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."
The court emphasized that the
, and
.
The earlier dismissal of the
petition for non-prosecution was
, the court noted, meaning it did not bar the subsequent petition.
"As there is no limitation for filing a petition under
seeking maintenance, even if the petitioners have not filed any such petition for maintenance ... yet they are entitled to claim maintenance by filing a petition subsequently,"
the order stated.
A Clear Precedent
The court made a key declaration:
"On merits, it is made clear that first petitioner is entitled for maintenance to be received from the respondent herein.
."
This effectively affirms Bhagya's right to maintenance, leaving only the question of quantum to be decided.
The case has been remanded to the , with a direction to determine: (a) the for the wife and from when it should be paid, and (b) whether the daughter, Deepika, is entitled to maintenance and, if so, the quantum and start date. The family court has been instructed to complete this exercise within three months.
Key Observations
In a crucial passage, the High Court underscored the protective nature of :
"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 further noted:
"Only because the wife and child have not claimed maintenance immediately on
by
, their
."
Implications
This judgment reinforces that under , a dependent's right to maintenance is not lost by inaction or delay. The focus must remain on whether the person legally bound to maintain has neglected or refused to do so, and whether the claimant is unable to maintain themselves. The ruling protects vulnerable women and children from being penalized for delayed legal action, especially when they have faced years of neglect and hardship.
