Husband Cannot Claim Maintenance From Wife Under Section 144 BNSS — Allahabad HC Imposes ₹15 Lakh Cost for Economic Abuse and False Affidavits
EduLaw EditorialLandmark JudgementsCan a husband claim maintenance from his wife under the criminal law framework? The Allahabad High Court answered with a decisive "No" — and went further, imposing ₹15 lakh in compensatory costs on an advocate-husband who systematically exploited his wife's finances, filed false affidavits, and misused the judicial process to sustain a fraudulent maintenance claim. Title: Husband Disentitled to Maintenance Under Section 144 BNSS — Allahabad High Court Imposes ₹15 Lakh Compensatory Cost for Economic Abuse and Judicial Fraud Case Name: Ranjeet Singh v. Neetu Singh Case Number: Matters Under Article 227 No. 12198 of 2025 (arising from Maintenance Case No. 523 of 2025) Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Judge: Hon'ble Justice Vinod Diwakar Judgment Date: 23 April 2026 Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:90307 ABSTRACT The Allahabad High Court, in Ranjeet Singh v. Neetu Singh (2026:AHC:90307), delivered a landmark ruling examining whether a husband can claim maintenance from his wife under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 — the statutory successor to Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 . The petitioner-husband, a practicing advocate, sought to expedite his maintenance proceedings against his wife, an Additional Private Secretary at the Allahabad High Court, through a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India . Justice Vinod Diwakar found that the husband had concealed a prior maintenance order under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 , filed false affidavits, and systematically depleted his wife's financial resources by coercing her into personal loans exceeding ₹25 lakh. Holding that Section 144 BNSS was legislatively designed to provide maintenance only to wives, children, and parents — not husbands — the Court dismissed the petition and imposed ₹15 lakh as compensatory costs payable to the wife. The judgment draws upon the Madras High Court's reasoning in B. Clement v. Mcthel Thanga Annam and the Hyderabad High Court's ruling in Malleshwaramma v. G.S. Srinivasulu , while simultaneously developing the jurisprudence on economic abuse within marriage and the corrective purpose of compensatory costs in matrimonial litigation. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction and Significance of the Judgment Factual Background and Marital History The Husband's Claims and Arguments Before the Court The Wife's Rebuttal and Exposure of Financial Fraud The Role of the Amicus Curiae and the False Affidavit Question Legal Analysis — Scope of Section 144 BNSS and the Husband's Disentitlement Economic Abuse Within Marriage — The Court's Jurisprudential Framework Directions, Compensatory Costs, and Precedential Value 1. Introduction and Significance of the Judgment The question of whether a husband can claim maintenance from his wife under the criminal law framework governing family welfare has long simmered in Indian matrimonial jurisprudence. While personal laws such as the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 do permit either spouse to seek interim maintenance under Section 24 during pendency of matrimonial proceedings, the criminal law provision — formerly Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 , now replaced by Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 — was specifically designed as a social welfare measure to protect certain categories of dependents from destitution. In Ranjeet Singh v. Neetu Singh , the Allahabad High Court confronted this question head-on, producing a judgment that is as much about statutory interpretation as it is about the judiciary's willingness to call out fraud, economic exploitation, and the weaponization of legal process in matrimonial disputes. Justice Vinod Diwakar's ruling is notable not only for clarifying that a husband falls outside the legislative scope of Section 144 BNSS but also for the unprecedented imposition of ₹15 lakh in compensatory costs — a figure that signals the court's growing intolerance for what it described as "luxury litigation born out of false pretenses, ego, and greed." The judgment weaves together principles of unjust enrichment, the doctrine of clean hands, the Supreme Court's disclosure mandates in Rajnesh v. Neha (2020) 14 SCC 596, and the emerging recognition of economic abuse as a distinct wrong within the institution of marriage. For practitioners, litigants, and scholars of family law, this decision offers a rich repository of doctrinal reasoning and practical deterrence. 2. Factual Background and Marital History The marriage between Ranjeet Singh and Neetu Singh was solemnized on 18 May 2019 in Etawah in accordance with Hindu rites. At the time of the marriage, both parties were unemployed and preparing for competitive examinations. Neetu Singh had qualified for the post of Additional Private Secretary on 14 May 2019 — merely four days before the wedding — and joined the Allahabad High Court on 7 June 2019. The timing of the marriage, coming within a week of the announc