Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure pertains to the Maintenance that is to be given

by a man to their wife, parents and children in order for them to sustain themselves. It is a tool
for social justice enacted to ensure that women and children are protected from a life of
potential vagrancy and destitution. The Supreme Court has consistently upheld that the
conceptualisation of Section 125 was meant to ameliorate the financial suffering of a woman
who had left her matrimonial home; it is a means to secure the woman’s sustenance, along with
that of the children, if any. The statutory provision entails that if the husband has sufficient
means, he is obligated to maintain his wife and children, and not shirk away from his moral
and familial responsibilities. Further, while deciding the matter of maintenance, it is important
for the Court to bear in mind that technicalities such as jurisdiction should not impede the
object that is sought to be achieved by a provision such as Section 125 CrPC which is
essentially social welfare legislation. Further, while deciding the matter of maintenance, it is
important for the Court to bear in mind that technicalities such as jurisdiction should not impede
the object that is sought to be achieved by a provision such as Section 125 CrPC which is
essentially social welfare legislation. The Bench stated that the Principal Judge carefully
analysed the material on record before coming to the conclusion that territorial jurisdiction of
the Court can be conferred in the case which has been instituted by the respondent/wife. Adding
to the above, Court noted that as per Section 126 CrPC, proceedings under Section 125 CrPC
may be instituted against any person in any district where he is, or where he or his wife resides,
or where he last resided with his wife, or as the case may be, with the mother of the illegitimate
child.

Type 1A

1. A party having grievances against an order passed under Section 125 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, has the right to file the revision application in the court of law as
provided under?
(A) Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(B) Section 398 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(C) Section 396 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(D) Section 394 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
CORRECT OPTION: A
EXPLANATION:
Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is one of the most invoked and discussed
 provisions of the code. This code provides that any person who has sufficient means to
maintain himself cannot deny the maintenance to the wife, children, and parents if they are
not able to maintain themselves. However, sometimes the husbands, against whom the order
of maintenance is passed may not be satisfied with the judgment passed by the lower court
and therefore, they should have a platform where they can put up their grievances against the
order. Therefore, they have the right to file the revision application in the court of law as
provided under Section 397 of the Code. The scope of revision applications increased in
recent times due to increasing awareness and improved outlook of the judiciary towards
providing justice to such parties as well.
SOURCE:
Available at: https://blog.ipleaders.in/analysis-scope-revision-section-125-crpc/
Refer para 2

Type 3A

2. Which court under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can order a person
to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or
mother?
(A) Magistrate of the first class.
(B) Magistrate of the second class
(C) Chief Judicial Magistrate
(D) District Magistrate.
CORRECT OPTION: A
EXPLANATION:
Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure states that “a Magistrate of the first class
may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance
for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate not
exceeding five hundred rupees in the whole, as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the
same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct”
SOURCE:
Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1056396/

Type 4B
3. Proceedings under Section 125 may be taken against any person in any district?

(A) Where he is, or

(B) Where he or his wife, resides, or

(C) Where he last resided with his wife, or as the case may be, with the mother of
the illegitimate child.

(D) All of the Above.

CORRECT OPTION: D
EXPLANATION:
Section 126 of the Code of Criminal Procedure states that

“126. Procedure.

(1) Proceedings under section 125 may be taken against any person in any district-

(a) where he is, or

(b) where he or his wife, resides, or

(c) where he last resided with his wife, or as the case may be, with the mother of the
illegitimate child.”

SOURCE:
Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1192459/

Type 5B

4. The parents of the Respondent/wife have two houses, i.e. one in City X and the other in
City Y, and the Respondent/wife is presumably staying in City Y. Based on the given
facts, which of the following is correct?
(A) Territorial jurisdiction for maintenance can only be conferred in City Y.

(B) Territorial jurisdiction for maintenance can be conferred in both City X as well as in
City Y.

(C) Territorial jurisdiction for maintenance can only be conferred in City X.

(D) Territorial jurisdiction for maintenance can also be conferred in City Z, where the
Petitioner/Husband lives.
 CORRECT OPTION: B
EXPLANATION:
While concluding the matter, High Court expressed that as per the impugned Order herein,
the fact that the parents of the Respondent/wife have two houses, i.e. one in Faridabad and
the other in Vasant Kunj, Delhi, can only mean that territorial jurisdiction can be conferred
in both Faridabad as well as Delhi.
SOURCE:
Available at: https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2021/11/17/territorial-jurisdiction-2/
Refer last Para

Type 4B

5. Which of the following is correct regarding if any person so ordered fails without
sufficient cause to comply with the order of maintenance under Section 125(3)?
(A) No warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under Section 125,
unless application be made to the Court to levy such amount within a period of two
year from the date on which it became due.
(B) A Magistrate of the first class may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant
for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines
(C) A Magistrate may sentence such person, for the whole or any part of each month’s
allowances remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment
for a term which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made.
(D) None of the Above.

CORRECT OPTION: A
EXPLANATION:
Section 125 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure states “If any person so ordered fails without
sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such Magistrate may, for every breach of the
order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines, and
may sentence such person, for the whole or any part of each months 4[allowance for the
maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be,]
 remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may
extend to one month or until payment if sooner made:
Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under this section
unless application be amade to the Court to levy such amount within a period of one year from
the date on which it became due:

Provided further that if such person offers to maintain his wife on condition of her living with
him, and she refuses to live with him, such Magistrate may consider any grounds of refusal
stated by her, and may make an order under this section notwithstanding such offer, if he is
satisfied that there is just ground for so doing.

Explanation.--If a husband has contracted marriage with another woman or keeps a

mistress, it shall be considered to be just ground for his wifes refusal to live with him.
SOURCE:
Available at: https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-
data?actid=AC_CEN_5_23_000010_197402_1517807320555&sectionId=22514&sectio
nno=125&orderno=147

Type 4B

6. Which of the following statements is not true regarding the Maintenance under Section
125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973?
(A) The Supreme Court has held that the conceptualisation of Section 125 was meant to
ameliorate the financial suffering of a woman who had left her matrimonial home.
(B) The Supreme Court has held that Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a
tool for social justice enacted to ensure that women and children are protected from a
life of potential vagrancy and destitution.
(C) The Supreme Court has held that it is important for the Court to bear in mind that
technicalities such as jurisdiction should be given proper and due consideration in order
to properly achieve the object sought by a provision such as Section 125 CrPC.
(D) The Supreme Court has held that it is important for the Court to bear in mind that
technicalities such as jurisdiction should not impede the object that is sought to be
achieved by a provision such as Section 125 CrPC.

CORRECT OPTION: C
 EXPLANATION
Statement C: Further, while deciding the matter of maintenance, it is important for the Court
to bear in mind that technicalities such as jurisdiction should not impede the object that is
sought to be achieved by a provision such as Section 125 CrPC

SOURCE

Statements A, B, C, D: Taken from paragraph itself