A divorced wife remains entitled to Section 125 maintenance until remarriage, notwithstanding the husband’s divorce decree.

The petitioner-husband, Samar Paul, married Opposite Party No. 2, Jyotsna Paul, on 11 February 1995. They had two children, including their daughter Sangita Paul, who attained majority in October 2017.

Following matrimonial disputes and several civil and criminal proceedings, Opposite Party No. 2 filed Miscellaneous Case No. 41 of 2019 under Section 125 CrPC. The Magistrate granted interim maintenance of ₹3,500 per month—₹1,500 for the wife and ₹2,000 for the daughter—by order dated 15 October 2019.

The petitioner subsequently obtained an ex parte decree of divorce on 20 June 2022. The wife challenged that decree under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, and the application remained pending.

In the meantime, she initiated Miscellaneous Execution Case No. 61 of 2021 for recovery of maintenance arrears. The Magistrate rejected the petitioner’s contention that the divorce extinguished the maintenance proceedings, and coercive distress warrants were eventually issued.

The petitioner challenged the continuation of the maintenance and execution proceedings under Sections 482, 397 and 401 CrPC, contending that the divorce ended the spousal relationship, that the major daughter was not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, and that execution had proceeded without the asset-disclosure process required by Rajnesh v. Neha.

The wife opposed the revision, relying on Explanation (b) to Section 125(1) CrPC and submitting that the petitioner continued to possess sufficient means.

1. Whether a proceeding under Section 125 CrPC and its execution are extinguished merely because the husband subsequently obtains an ex parte decree of divorce?

2. Whether an unmarried daughter who attained majority before institution of the Section 125 proceeding, and who is neither physically nor mentally abnormal, can claim or continue to receive maintenance under Section 125(1)(c) CrPC?

3. Whether coercive execution, including distress warrants, could proceed without compliance with the asset-disclosure requirements laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha?

Section 125 CrPC is a social-justice provision intended to prevent destitution and vagrancy.

Explanation (b) to Section 125(1) includes within “wife” a woman who has been divorced by her husband and has not remarried; under Vanamala v. H.M. Ranganatha Bhatta, (1995) 5 SCC 299, and Rohtash Singh v. Smt. Ramendri, (2000) 3 SCC 180, divorce does not by itself terminate the former husband’s statutory maintenance liability.

Section 125(1)(c) restricts maintenance for a major child to a child who, by reason of physical or mental abnormality or injury, is unable to maintain itself.

Under Abhilasha v. Parkash, (2021) 13 SCC 99, an unmarried Hindu daughter may have a civil remedy under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, but that right cannot enlarge the limited entitlement available under Section 125 CrPC.

The principles in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, require affidavits of disclosure of assets and liabilities in maintenance proceedings and mandate a reasoned, fact-based determination of financial capacity and maintenance.

Exercise of revisional and inherent jurisdiction cannot ordinarily involve a mini-trial on disputed questions of fact, consistent with State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.

The Court held that the ex parte divorce decree did not automatically terminate the wife’s statutory entitlement because Explanation (b) to Section 125(1) expressly includes a divorced woman who has not remarried.

The validity of the decree was also under challenge in the pending Order IX Rule 13 proceedings, while factual disputes regarding the parties’ income, property and means were matters for trial and not for determination in revision.

In contrast, the daughter had attained majority before the Section 125 petition was filed and was not alleged to suffer from any physical or mental abnormality or injury. Her claim therefore fell outside Section 125(1)(c), notwithstanding any separate civil remedy available under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act.

The Court further found that the conflicting claims concerning the petitioner’s income and business required disclosure affidavits and proper adjudication under Rajnesh v. Neha.

Accordingly, execution could not operate as a blind punitive mechanism, but the petitioner was also required to demonstrate bona fides by depositing part of the wife’s arrears as a condition for staying coercive execution.

The Court upheld the continuation of Miscellaneous Case No. 41 of 2019 and Miscellaneous Execution Case No. 61 of 2021 insofar as they concerned the wife, holding that her status as a divorced, non-remarried woman preserved her entitlement under Section 125 CrPC.

The interim maintenance awarded to the daughter and all consequential execution proceedings and distress warrants relating to her were set aside because she had attained majority before institution of the proceedings and did not satisfy Section 125(1)(c).

Execution of the wife’s maintenance arrears and the distress warrants were stayed subject to the petitioner depositing 50% of the genuine accumulated arrears attributable to the wife, excluding the daughter’s share, within four weeks; failing such deposit, the Trial Court could proceed with execution in accordance with law.

The Trial Magistrate was directed to dispose of the main maintenance proceeding by a reasoned final order as expeditiously as possible, after considering the applicable financial disclosures and evidence.