Under Section 144 BNSS (formerly Section 125 CrPC), four categories of dependants can seek maintenance from a person who has sufficient means but neglects or refuses to maintain them: (a) a wife who is unable to maintain herself — and the word "wife" expressly includes a woman who has been divorced and has not remarried; (b) a legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, who is unable to maintain itself; (c) a legitimate or illegitimate child (other than a married daughter) who has attained majority but, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury, cannot maintain itself; and (d) a father or mother who is unable to maintain himself or herself. A wife living in adultery, or who refuses without sufficient reason to live with her husband, or where the parties are living separately by mutual consent, is generally not entitled to the allowance.

Maintenance is not governed by a single statute. The same claimant may have parallel remedies, and courts adjust the amount to avoid double payment. The principal provisions are: Section 144 BNSS, 2023 — the secular, religion-neutral summary remedy available to wives, children and parents; Sections 24 and 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — maintenance pendente lite and permanent alimony in matrimonial proceedings; Section 18, Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 — a Hindu wife's right to be maintained; Section 20, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — monetary relief, including maintenance, to an aggrieved woman; and Sections 36 and 37, Special Marriage Act, 1954 for marriages under that Act. A divorced Muslim woman has remedies under both Section 144 BNSS and the 2019 Act, which the Supreme Court has held to be additional, not exclusive.

In Rajnesh v. Neha the Supreme Court laid down a comprehensive code to remove the confusion caused by overlapping maintenance proceedings. Its key directions, which still govern practice in 2026, are: a mandatory Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities to be filed by both parties at the threshold; criteria for fixing quantum (status of parties, reasonable needs, the claimant's qualifications and employment, independent income and assets, the standard of living during marriage, and the liabilities and earning capacity of the respondent); a direction that maintenance is ordinarily payable from the date of the application, not the date of order; guidance to avoid overlapping awards under different statutes by adjusting amounts; and a framework for enforcement of orders. These guidelines were circulated to all Family Courts and High Courts.

The Delhi High Court has continued to refine how trial courts should approach maintenance. In a 2025 decision (Neutral Citation 2025:DHC:9479), the Court emphasised that a Family Court must first make a genuine assessment of the respondent's real income and financial capacity, must pass reasoned interim-maintenance orders rather than ad-hoc figures, and must be cautious about loading notional minimum-wage income onto a spouse without material. The Court has also approved the widely-used approach of treating roughly one-third of the husband's net income as a reasonable starting point for a dependent wife and children (the method explained in Annurita Vohra v. Sandeep Vohra), to be adjusted up or down on the facts. The thrust of these principles is fairness, speed and transparency.

There is no fixed formula; the amount is discretionary but principled. Courts weigh the income, assets and liabilities of both spouses, the reasonable needs and standard of living of the claimant and the children, the claimant's own earning capacity and qualifications, the number of dependants, and the conduct of the parties. As a broad working guide, courts have used benchmarks ranging from about 25% of the husband's net salary (approved in Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury) to roughly one-third of net income where children are also dependent (the Annurita Vohra approach), reduced where the wife has her own independent income. The object is to enable the dependant to live with the dignity to which she was accustomed — not to penalise the husband or to allow either party to engineer a windfall.

Interim maintenance can be claimed at any stage and is meant to tide the dependant over while the case is decided; the statute directs that it should, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of notice to the respondent. Once an order is passed and the respondent defaults, the law provides real teeth: the court can issue a warrant for recovery of the arrears as if they were a fine, attach property, and may sentence the defaulter to imprisonment for up to one month for each month's default that remains unpaid. Arrears, however, are generally enforced only if the application for recovery is made within one year from the date they became due.