Resources · Family
Maintenance Calculator
Work through who can claim, how likely an order is, and roughly how much — in one guided flow, each answer anchored to a statute or a Supreme Court judgment. One honest limit: there is no fixed formula for the amount (Rajnesh v. Neha), so it gives a range and the methods behind it, never a single invented number.
It walks you through who may claim and under which provision — that part is settled law — then gives an indicative read on how likely an order is and roughly how much, and lays out the mandatory disclosure. What it will not do is invent a single certain figure for the amount, because the Supreme Court has said it in terms: “There is no straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum of maintenance” (Rajnesh v. Neha, Part B-III), and again “There cannot be strict guidelines or a fixed formula … These are only guidelines and not a straitjacket rubric” (Parvin Kumar Jain v. Anju Jain, 10.12.2024, paras 31 and 32). A tool that produced one number would be inventing certainty the law does not have. What the law does give you, precisely, is set out below.
Assess your case
One guided flow. Set your position, choose who is claiming, add the income figures if you have them, and tick the facts that are true. It brings the parts together into a single read: whether an order is likely, and — kept as a separate question, because the law has no formula for it — roughly how much. It is not a prediction and not legal advice; a court decides on the whole record, and may see it differently.
Your position
Eligible in principle. The lawful routes:
- BNSS s.144 (formerly s.125 CrPC) — Secular, quick, any-religion. A neglected wife who cannot maintain herself.
- Hindu Marriage Act ss.24-25 — Interim (pendente lite) and permanent alimony, inside a matrimonial case.
- HAMA s.18 — A Hindu wife's right to be maintained by her husband; can be a standalone civil suit.
- DV Act s.20 — Monetary relief, including maintenance, in a domestic-violence proceeding.
- Special Marriage Act ss.36-37 — The equivalent of HMA ss.24-25 for a civil marriage.
A wife with no or insufficient income, against a husband who has means, is the ordinary case for an order. But the statutory bars in s.125(4) (living in adultery, refusing without reason to live with the husband, or living apart by mutual consent) can defeat it entirely.
Eligible in principle. The lawful routes:
- BNSS s.144 (formerly s.125 CrPC) — One application can cover the wife and the minor children together.
- Hindu Marriage Act ss.24-26 — Interim/permanent for the wife (ss.24-25) and the children (s.26), inside a matrimonial case.
- HAMA ss.18 and 20 — The wife (s.18) and the children (s.20); both parents are liable for the children in income proportion.
- DV Act s.20 — Monetary relief for the aggrieved woman and the children in a domestic-violence proceeding.
This is the usual claim in practice. A wife with little or no income, together with minor children, against a husband/father who has means, is the ordinary case for an order — the children's entitlement is almost automatic and does not depend on the state of the marriage. The wife's OWN part can still be met by the s.125(4) bars (living in adultery, refusing without reason to live together, or living apart by mutual consent), but those bars do not touch the children's maintenance.
Eligible in principle. The lawful route:
- Hindu Marriage Act ss.24-25 — The only route. Gender-neutral text; granted on genuine inability to maintain himself.
There is no route under BNSS s.144 / s.125 CrPC — that provision does not let a husband claim. HMA ss.24-25 are gender-neutral ("either the wife or the husband"), so a husband may apply against an earning wife, but the courts grant it only where he genuinely cannot earn — a physical or mental disability or injury — and not to an able-bodied husband who simply is not working.
Eligible in principle. The lawful routes:
- BNSS s.144 (formerly s.125 CrPC) — Covers the children (from the mother). NOT the husband — s.144 does not let a husband claim.
- Hindu Marriage Act ss.24-26 — The husband may apply under ss.24-25 (gender-neutral, on genuine inability); the children under s.26.
- HAMA s.20 — Both parents are liable for the children in income proportion; the father recovers the mother's share.
The children's part is the strong element: a mother with means is liable to maintain her minor children (BNSS s.144 and HAMA s.20), and that does not depend on the marriage. The husband's OWN part is the weak element — a husband is maintained only under HMA ss.24-25 and only on genuine inability to earn, not merely because the wife earns more. So an order for the children is likely; the husband's own maintenance turns on his incapacity.
Eligible in principle. The lawful routes:
- BNSS s.144 (formerly s.125 CrPC) — A minor child, legitimate or illegitimate, unable to maintain itself.
- Hindu Marriage Act s.26 — Maintenance and education of minor children within a matrimonial case.
- HAMA s.20 — A Hindu parent's obligation to maintain a minor child; both parents liable in proportion to income (s.20(2)).
A minor child is entitled to maintenance from a parent who has means, whatever the parents' religion (Noor Saba Khatoon). Where both parents earn, the child's requirement is shared between them in proportion to income, so a parent with custody recovers the other parent's share (Padmja Sharma) — this is how a father with custody claims from an earning mother.
Eligible in principle. The lawful routes:
- BNSS s.144(1) (proviso — formerly s.125(1)(c) CrPC) — The express exception for a disabled major child.
- HAMA s.20 — A Hindu parent's obligation, for a Hindu family.
This is the one situation in which a major child is entitled under BNSS s.144 / s.125 CrPC — the statute's own exception for a child "by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself" (Abhilasha v. Parkash, 15.09.2020, para 12). The abnormality/injury and the resulting inability have to be pleaded and proved.
Eligible in principle. The lawful routes:
- HAMA s.20(3) — The settled route: father's obligation to an unmarried daughter till marriage, on proof of inability. Civil proceeding.
- BNSS s.144(1)(b) — arguable only — Post-01.07.2024 the word "minor" is gone, so this is now arguable for an adult daughter unable to maintain herself — but untested and contested.
The settled route is s.20(3) HAMA: an unmarried Hindu daughter can claim from her father until she is married, provided she pleads and proves she cannot maintain herself from her own earnings or property, enforced in a civil proceeding. Under the OLD s.125 CrPC the Supreme Court held a Magistrate could NOT pass such an order (Abhilasha v. Parkash, 15.09.2020, paras 33-34, 38, appeal dismissed at para 39). That said, the position under the NEW secular provision is now arguable: BNSS s.144(1)(b) (w.e.f. 01.07.2024) dropped the word "minor", so a daughter "unable to maintain itself" may now be within it — but this is untested and contested (Abhilasha was decided under the old Code). HAMA remains the safe route; treat any BNSS s.144 claim as an open point to take advice on.
Genuinely unsettled after the BNSS (w.e.f. 01.07.2024). Read on:
- BNSS s.144(1)(b) — arguable only — Post-01.07.2024 the word "minor" is gone, so a major child "unable to maintain itself" is arguably covered — but this is untested and contested.
This is now an OPEN question, and the honest answer is that it is not settled either way. Under the OLD s.125 CrPC an able-bodied major child was not entitled — s.125 was confined to minors and to a major child with a physical or mental abnormality or injury (Abhilasha v. Parkash, 15.09.2020, decided under the old Code). BUT the replacement provision, BNSS s.144(1)(b) (w.e.f. 01.07.2024), DROPPED the word "minor": it now reads "his legitimate or illegitimate child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself", and "minor" was removed from the Explanation too. On one reading a major able-bodied child who genuinely cannot maintain themselves can now claim; on the other reading clause (c) (which still deals separately with a disabled major child) would be made redundant, and the first proviso still speaks of a female child "until she attains her majority". No court has yet resolved this. Do not assume either way — this is exactly the kind of point to take advice on. (HAMA separately obliges a Hindu parent to maintain an unmarried daughter, but not an able-bodied adult son.)
Step 2 · The money — optional; it estimates the amount and fills in the income facts
Step 3 · The facts
Tick everything that is true. They are split into what would help the claim and what would weaken or defeat it — each is anchored to a statute or a judgment.
In the claimant's favour
Statutory testsstatute
Supreme Court factorsSupreme Court
Against the claim (these help the person resisting)
Statutory bars & testsstatute
Supreme Court factorsSupreme Court
What is settled
-
Maintenance is awarded from the DATE OF FILING the application, in every case and under every one of these statutes. The time the proceedings take is not within the applicant's control.
Rajnesh v. Neha (04.11.2020), Part B-IV and Final Direction (d)
-
An Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities is MANDATORY, from BOTH parties, in ALL maintenance proceedings including those already pending, in the prescribed format.
Rajnesh, Final Direction (b), issued under Articles 136 and 142; re-circulated after Aditi v. Jitesh Sharma (06.11.2023)
-
Both parents are obliged to maintain a minor child. However affluent the mother, it is not the father's obligation alone.
Padmja Sharma v. Ratan Lal Sharma (28.03.2000), para 10, on HAMA s. 20(2)
-
A maintenance order already obtained under another statute MUST be disclosed in the later proceeding, and the later court considers an adjustment or set-off rather than ordering the full amount again.
Rajnesh, Final Direction (a)
-
If an existing order needs to be varied, that must be done in the SAME proceeding in which it was passed, not collaterally in a fresh one.
Rajnesh, Final Direction (a)
Which provision applies
More than one route may be open at the same time. That is permitted, but the amounts are not simply cumulative: a previous order must be disclosed and the later court considers a set-off.
| Statute | Provision | Who may claim | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 | Section 144 | Wife, children and parents (secular, all communities) | Replaced Section 125 CrPC with effect from 01.07.2024. The wording is carried over almost verbatim, with one change that matters: clause (1)(b) no longer contains the word "minor" (see the open question at the end of this page). Enforcement is under s. 147; alteration under s. 146. |
| Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for pending matters only) | Section 125 | Wife, children and parents | Still governs any application that was already pending on 01.07.2024: BNSS s. 531(2)(a) saves pending proceedings, which continue as if the BNSS had not come into force. |
| Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | Section 24 (pendente lite) and Section 25 (permanent alimony) | Either spouse | Gender-neutral: either the wife or the husband may apply. Section 24 carries a 60-day disposal proviso. Orders are enforceable under s. 28A. |
| Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956one-way: only the wife may apply | Section 18 (wife), Section 20 (children and aged parents) | Wife against husband; a child from father OR mother | Section 18 runs one way, wife against husband. Section 20(2) is the provision that obliges BOTH parents to maintain a minor child. Section 23 sets out the statutory factors for amount. |
| Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005one-way: only the wife may apply | Section 20 (monetary reliefs) | Aggrieved woman | Relief may be in addition to an order under the secular provision. Section 20(6) allows the Magistrate to direct an employer or debtor to pay a portion of wages or salary directly. |
| Special Marriage Act, 1954one-way: only the wife may apply | Section 36 (pendente lite) and Section 37 (permanent alimony) | Wife only | A trap worth noting: unlike HMA ss. 24 and 25, these run ONE WAY. Only the wife may apply and only the husband pays. Applies where the marriage was solemnised or registered under this Act. |
Note the changeover date. Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was replaced by Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita on 01.07.2024, and the wording carried over unchanged. An application that was already pending on that date continues under Section 125, because Section 531(2)(a) of the Sanhita saves pending proceedings.
How the amount is worked out
There is no formula for the spousal amount, so the estimate in the result above is a range from the working methods courts actually use, not an answer. For a child, the one step a court does work arithmetically is the proportionate split, so that part is computed exactly. Here is what each figure rests on.
-
The 25% method. About a quarter of the payer's net income, applied by the Delhi High Court in Sapna Paul v. Rohin Paul (19.01.2024, para 42). It is not a benchmark: in Kalyan Dey Chowdhury the Supreme Court allowed about 21 per cent for a wife and son together, and Kulbhushan Kumar v. Raj Kumari declined to fix any proportion of income (capping a daughter's share at 15 per cent).
-
The unit method. Divide net disposable income into units — two to the earning spouse, who bears the cost of earning, and one to each other member — from Annurita Vohra v. Sandeep Vohra (Delhi High Court, 15.03.2004). A working method, not Supreme Court law.
-
A child's proportionate share. Once the child's reasonable requirement is found, it is shared between the parents in proportion to their incomes (Padmja Sharma v. Ratan Lal Sharma, 28.03.2000, paras 11-12, on s.20(2) HAMA). The requirement is a judicial finding, not a computation, and Padmja Sharma itself rounded the ratio (salaries of ₹3,100 and ₹5,850, about 1:1.89, applied as 1:2). The amount is ultimately the court's, on the facts.
The mandatory Affidavit of Disclosure
In Rajnesh v. Neha the Supreme Court made an Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities mandatory for both parties in every maintenance proceeding across the country, including proceedings already pending. Courts are still deciding maintenance without it, which the Court criticised in Aditi v. Jitesh Sharma (06.11.2023) before ordering the judgment to be circulated again. Gather these before you file.
Proof of income (salaried)
Proof of income (self-employed, professional or in business)
Tax and banking
Assets and liabilities
Children and dependants
Medical and prior proceedings
Procedure attached to the affidavit: the respondent replies on affidavit within a maximum of four weeks and gets no more than two opportunities; persistent default may lead to the defence being struck off, though only as a last resort and only where it is wilful. Parties below the poverty line and casual labourers are exempted. The interim application should be decided by a reasoned order within four to six months of the affidavits being filed.
The factors the court weighs (Rajnesh v. Neha)
The nine factors the Supreme Court set out in Rajnesh v. Neha (04.11.2020), under “Criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance” — the applicant's side of the balance:
- Status of the parties, socially and financially
- Reasonable needs of the wife and the dependent children
- Whether the applicant is educated and professionally qualified
- Whether the applicant has any independent source of income
- Whether that income is sufficient to maintain the same standard of living as in the matrimonial home
- Whether the applicant was employed before the marriage
- Whether she was working during the subsistence of the marriage
- Whether she gave up employment opportunities to nurture the family and raise the children
- Reasonable costs of litigation for a non-working wife
Against these, the court weighs the payer's side: his actual income, his own reasonable expenses, the family members he is genuinely obliged to maintain, his liabilities and his standard of living, together with inflation. The same list was re-affirmed in Parvin Kumar Jain v. Anju Jain (10.12.2024, para 32), which added that these are “only guidelines and not a straitjacket rubric”. The list is not exhaustive, and being educated and capable of working is not, by itself, an answer to a claim.
Open questions we will not paper over
- BNSS s. 144(1)(b) no longer uses the word "minor", and the definition of "minor" has gone from the Explanation, although the first proviso still speaks of a female child "until she attains her majority". Whether an adult child can now claim under this provision has not been settled by any decision we could find. Do not assume either way.
- The Declaration in the prescribed affidavit still cites the Indian Penal Code (ss. 191, 193, 199 and 209) for the consequences of a false statement. The IPC has since been replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the format has not been judicially updated.
- This is general information to help you prepare, not legal advice, and it does not create an advocate-client relationship.
- The amount of maintenance is decided by the court on the facts of the case. Nothing here predicts what a court will award.
- Which route to use, and in what order, is a strategic decision with consequences for set-off and for enforcement. Take advice before filing.
Preparing or resisting a maintenance claim? You can contact the firm to discuss your matter.