The Supreme Court, in Rina Kumari @ Rina Devi @ Reena vs. Dinesh Kumar Mahto @ Dinesh Kumar Mahato and Anr [2025 INSC 55], clarified that the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) are essentially civil in nature.
Although these cases are filed under criminal procedural laws—formerly Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and now Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)—they serve as a speedy remedy for dependents.
The primary goal of granting maintenance is to ensure social justice and prevent destitution or vagrancy rather than to punish an individual, terming non-payment of maintenance as a crime.
Objectives and Enforcement
The main objective is to provide financial support to wives, children, and parents who cannot maintain themselves. It treats the provision of maintenance as a social duty rather than the resolution of a criminal offence.
While these cases are dealt with in a Magistrate’s court, the enforcement of maintenance orders functions similar to that of a civil court’s money decree. This allows for the attachment of property to satisfy the amount due or owed.
Non-Payment Does Not Make Anyone Criminal
Non-payment of maintenance does not immediately categorize a person as a criminal. Instead, the legal process focuses on recovering the “debt.” Even though penalties such as imprisonment exist for willful default, they are viewed as a means of enforcing the recovery of dues rather than punishment for a traditional crime.
