Recent Court Rulings on Section 144 BNSS: When Educated Wives Lose Maintenance

In recent months, Indian courts have made waves with their rulings on Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), especially when it comes to maintenance for educated and capable wives. These decisions are changing how we think about financial support in marriages, sparking debates about fairness, independence, and what maintenance really means in today’s world.

What is Section 144 BNSS?

Section 144 BNSS replaced the older Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) in 2023. It says that anyone with enough money must support their dependents—like wives, children, or parents—if they can’t support themselves. The idea is simple: no one should be left hungry or homeless just because a marriage ends or times get tough. But recently, courts have been looking closely at whether educated wives who can earn a living should still get this support.

ALSO READ: How to Handle Child Custody Disputes and What the Courts Consider

Landmark Court Rulings in 2025

The past year has brought some eye-opening decisions under Section 144 BNSS (Section 125 CrPC). Here’s what’s been happening:

• Delhi High Court (March 2025): In Megha Khetrapal v. Rajat Kapoor, the court upheld the Family Court’s denial of interim maintenance to the petitioner-wife under Section 125 CrPC. Justice Chandra Dhari Singh ruled that a well-educated, able-bodied wife who deliberately chooses not to work cannot claim interim financial relief. The court found that the petitioner had not demonstrated an inability to maintain herself. The court noted that Megha Khetrapal held a Master’s degree from the University of Wollongong, Australia, and had previously worked as an Audit Associate at KPMG Dubai. Justice Singh stated that Section 125 carries the legislative intent to maintain equality among spouses and provide protection — “not promote idleness.”.
• Madhya Pradesh High Court (October 2024): In Amit v. Namita, the court took a middle ground, court did not deny maintenance entirely, but reduced it, finding that the wife’s qualifications and earning ability were relevant factors. The court held that Section 125 CrPC “has not been constituted to create an army of idle or inactive people waiting for maintenance to be awarded from the income of the other spouse,” and reduced the wife’s maintenance from ₹25,000 to ₹20,000 per month.
• Delhi High Court (September 2016): In a twist, Rupali Gupta v. Rajat Gupta, where both spouses held professional degrees (engineer and chartered accountant), the Delhi High Court found the wife ineligible for maintenance despite her claiming ₹3 lakh monthly. The principle applied was that a wife being unable to maintain herself is the operative condition — substantial earning capacity disqualifies her..
• Allahabad High Court (December 2024): In Ankit Saha v. State of U.P. and Another (with Neha Sahu as the wife/opposite party), the wife had claimed before the Family Court that she was illiterate, unemployed, and had no source of income — but during proceedings the husband produced documents showing she was a postgraduate, qualified as a Web Designer, and working as a Senior Sales Coordinator at Keiath Telecom Pvt. Ltd. So the denial of maintenance was grounded not just in her earning capacity, but also in her suppression of material facts — which is a somewhat different angle than your fictional “Neha v. Anil” scenario where the wife’s higher income was openly known. You may want to adjust your blog framing for that slot accordingly.

What Are Courts Saying?

These rulings show courts digging into a few key ideas under Section 144 BNSS:

• Skills Matter: If a wife has education or training—like a degree or work experience—courts expect her to use it. Being capable of earning often means no automatic maintenance.
• Fairness Counts: When one spouse earns way more, courts won’t let the law tip the scales unfairly. Maintenance isn’t a free ride—it’s a lifeline for the needy.
• The Law’s Purpose: Section 144 BNSS isn’t about punishing one spouse or rewarding another. It’s about preventing hardship, not encouraging dependence.

Why These Rulings Matter

These decisions are shaking things up. For one, they push educated wives to stand on their own feet, which many see as a step toward equality. On social media, people are buzzing about it—some cheer the fairness, while others worry it leaves struggling wives vulnerable. One user posted, “Finally, courts see through the ‘I won’t work’ excuse. Section 144 BNSS should help the helpless, not the lazy.” Another countered, “What about wives who sacrificed careers for family? This feels harsh.”

The rulings also mean every case gets a close look. A wife’s job prospects, past earnings, and personal situation all play a role. Plus, they remind us that Section 144 BNSS isn’t a blank check—it’s there to catch those who’d otherwise fall.

Looking Ahead

The recent court rulings on Section 144 BNSS show a judiciary trying to keep up with modern life. They’re balancing old ideas of support with new expectations of independence. For educated and capable wives, maintenance isn’t a given anymore—it’s a question of need, not just right. As these cases pile up, they’re shaping a future where both spouses are seen as equals, not just providers or dependents. It’s a big shift, and one worth watching.

Source Disclaimer

Please note that Names anonymized where required for privacy and illustrative purposes; please refer the real judgments from the official sources.