This compilation indexes twelve judicial decisions—spanning multiple High Courts and the Supreme Court of India—pronounced between 28 July 2026 and 21 August 2026, in which Section 125 was a cited provision. The majority of rulings arise under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) / Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) in maintenance proceedings before Family Courts, with one ruling engaging Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 in the context of redemption of confiscated goods. The compilation is intended for legal researchers, family law practitioners, and compliance professionals tracking judicial trends in maintenance enforcement and related revision petitions.

Research index only. This page is a structured case-law reference tool. Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice, and readers should verify all information against the full text of each judgment before relying on it for any purpose.

The statutory framework in one paragraph

Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (and its successor provision under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) empowers a Magistrate to order a person having sufficient means to pay a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife, legitimate or illegitimate minor children, and parents who are unable to maintain themselves. Separately, Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 confers on an adjudicating authority the power to permit the redemption of confiscated goods on payment of a fine, in lieu of outright confiscation. These are distinct statutory provisions operating under entirely different legislative regimes; several cases in this compilation engage Section 125 CrPC/BNSS in the Family Court context, while one (case 9) turns on the interplay between Section 125 and Section 80 of the Customs Act, 1962.

The 12 rulings

1. Kishor Dnyanoba Gaikwad vs Additional Collector And Ors

Bench: Bombay High Court
Date: 21 August 2026
Sections engaged: 125, 15, 23, 34
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 27 June 2019 passed by the Additional Collector, Pune, in Appeal No. 6 of 2019, which had quashed and set aside an earlier order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pune. Per the source preview, the appeal before the Additional Collector was preferred under Section 15 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, and the original application before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was instituted under Section 5 of that Act.

2. Smt. Prashansha Agrawal vs Arvind Kumar Modi

Bench: Chattisgarh High Court
Date: 19 August 2026
Sections engaged: 125, 91
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The criminal revision (CRR No. 419 of 2026) was filed before the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur against an order passed by the Family Court, Durg, in Misc. Criminal Case No. 477/2018, per the source preview. The revision challenged a Family Court order concerning the grant of maintenance to the applicants under the relevant provisions; the full outcome of the revision is not disclosed in the source preview.

3. Golak Bihari Sahu (G.B. Sahu) vs Smt Asharani Sahu

Bench: Chattisgarh High Court
Date: 12 August 2026
Sections engaged: 125, 97
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The criminal revision (CRR No. 595 of 2025) was filed before the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur. Per the source preview, the applicant and respondents are parties to a matrimonial dispute involving maintenance claims by the wife and two minor daughters. The source preview indicates the matter was heard on 12.08.2026; the substantive outcome of the revision is not disclosed in the available preview.

4. Ashutosh Rai Asthana vs Yamita Rai Asthana

Bench: Delhi High Court
Date: 11 August 2026
Sections engaged: 125(3), 19(4), 24
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petition (CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 122/2024) was filed before the Delhi High Court under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile Sections 397/401 CrPC), read with Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act, 1984, seeking to set aside an order dated 05.06.2024 of the Family Court (East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, in M.T. Case 323/2021. Per the source preview, the respondent had sought maintenance by way of an application and an ad-interim maintenance of Rs. 25,000/- had been awarded; the full outcome of the revision is not disclosed in the source preview.

5. Ali Fatima vs Safdar Raza & Ors

Bench: Delhi High Court
Date: 11 August 2026
Sections engaged: 125, 151, 41
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The Second Regular Appeal (RSA No. 15/2026) was filed before the Delhi High Court against a judgment dated 06.01.2026 of the learned District Judge, which had upheld an earlier judgment and decree dated 27.08.2025. Per the source preview, the appeal was filed under Section 41 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; the substantive outcome of the appeal is not disclosed in the available preview.

6. Virendra Srivastava vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of

Bench: Allahabad High Court
Date: 6 August 2026
Sections engaged: 125(3), 19(4)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The criminal revision (Criminal Revision No. 815 of 2026) was filed before the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act, challenging orders dated 12.06.2026 and 03.07.2026 passed by the Additional Principal Judge-I, Family Court, Barabanki, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 651 of 2019. Per the source preview, the Family Court had forfeited bonds submitted by the sureties of the revisionist and directed deposit of the bond amount, and had also issued a non-bailable warrant against the revisionist in proceedings under Section 125(3) CrPC. A preliminary objection regarding the impleadment of the State of U.P. as a party was also raised by the learned AGA-I, per the source preview.

7. Rinky Singh vs Deepak Singh Ari

Bench: Jharkhand High Court
Date: 6 August 2026
Sections engaged: 12, 125, 13(1), 19(1), 34
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The First Appeal (First Appeal No. 216 of 2025) was filed before the Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi under Section 19(1) of the Family Court Act, 1984, directed against the order/judgment dated 25.03.2025 and decree dated 05.04.2025 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, in Original Suit No. 81 of 2024. Per the source preview, the original suit had been filed by the respondent-husband for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce; the substantive outcome of the First Appeal is not disclosed in the available preview.

8. Birendra Kumar Singh vs Pratima Devi

Bench: Jharkhand High Court
Date: 6 August 2026
Sections engaged: 125, 13(1), 13(1)(ia)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The First Appeal (F.A. No. 241 of 2024) was filed before the Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi by the appellant-husband against an order dismissing his petition for a decree of divorce. Per the source preview, the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 20.05.1989 and the parties were blessed with three children; the appellant's petition under the Hindu Marriage Act provisions for divorce had been dismissed by the court below, and the appeal was heard by a division bench.

9. Oguljeren Derchiyeva vs Union Of India

Bench: Delhi High Court
Date: 5 August 2026
Sections engaged: 108, 114A, 125, 129D, 2(33), 80
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The writ petition (W.P.(C) 6948/2023) was filed before the Delhi High Court challenging an order of the Revisional Authority passed under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962. Per the source preview, the principal issue was whether the Revisional Authority was justified in setting aside the Adjudicating Authority's order permitting redemption of confiscated gold by way of re-export under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, on the ground that re-export of goods forming part of a passenger's baggage is specifically governed by Section 80 of the Customs Act and not by Section 125 thereof. The petitioner was a national of Turkmenistan who had arrived at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, on 01.05.2019.

10. Lokesh B.H vs State Of Karnataka

Bench: Supreme Court of India
Date: 3 August 2026
Sections engaged: 125, 304B, 498A
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of India arose out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 2240-2241 of 2026. Per the source preview, the dispute involved two complaints filed by the respondent wife arising from matrimonial differences, one of which culminated in a charge-sheet under Section 498A IPC and the other in a charge-sheet under multiple IPC sections along with provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. A core factual controversy, per the source preview, concerned whether the parties were validly married at all, which the accused-appellant disputed.

11. Pravinbhai Vaghjibhai Vasani vs State Of Gujarat

Bench: Gujarat High Court
Date: 30 July 2026
Sections engaged: 125
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The Criminal Revision Application (R/CR.RA/1179/2022) was filed before the Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad in respect of maintenance proceedings. Per the source preview, the respondent (wife) had filed an application for maintenance before the Family Court, Rajkot, alleging that the applicant carried on a business in gold and silver jewellery, ran a finance business, owned livestock and immovable property, while she was unable to maintain herself; the full outcome of the revision application is not disclosed in the available preview.

12. Dr. Tej Singh Ghanghre (Ghanghoriya) vs Smt. Kavita

Bench: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Date: 28 July 2026
Sections engaged: 125
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Three connected criminal revisions—CRR No. 4362/2024, CRR No. 4536/2024, and CRR No. 1320/2026—were heard together by the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior and decided on 28 July 2026. Per the source preview, all three revisions were filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the CrPC (corresponding to Sections 438 and 442 of the BNSS, 2023) read with Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, arising from the same matrimonial dispute and challenging orders passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior. The matter was finally heard with the consent of the parties.

Patterns across these 12 rulings

Revision jurisdiction is the dominant procedural vehicle. Across the majority of these cases, parties have invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the High Courts—typically under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, or the equivalent criminal revision provisions of the CrPC/BNSS—to challenge Family Court orders relating to maintenance. This reflects the established procedural pathway for contesting maintenance determinations at the High Court level.
Surety bond forfeiture and warrant enforcement are live enforcement issues. Case 6 (Virendra Srivastava) specifically illustrates that proceedings before Family Courts are generating consequential enforcement orders—including bond forfeiture and non-bailable warrants against defaulting respondents—which are then separately challenged before the High Court.
Consolidated or cross-revision proceedings in continuing matrimonial disputes. Case 12 (Dr. Tej Singh Ghanghre) demonstrates a pattern where multiple criminal revisions arising from the same matrimonial dispute are clubbed and heard together, suggesting that maintenance disputes frequently generate layered and iterative litigation across successive orders of the trial court.
Section 125 invoked alongside divorce proceedings. Cases 7 and 8 (Rinky Singh and Birendra Kumar Singh, both from the Jharkhand High Court) show Section 125 cited alongside Hindu Marriage Act divorce provisions, indicating that maintenance rights and dissolution proceedings are commonly litigated in parallel or as part of the same family law dispute cluster.
Section 125 of the Customs Act is a distinct and separate legal regime. Case 9 (Oguljeren Derchiyeva) stands apart from the rest of the compilation: it engages Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 in the context of redemption of confiscated goods, not matrimonial maintenance. Researchers should be alert to this terminological overlap when searching databases using the bare section number "125" across tax and criminal law repositories.

How to use this compilation

This compilation is organised chronologically in descending order of date of pronouncement. Each entry identifies the bench, date, sections cited, and the procedural or substantive ground derived strictly from the source preview available in the TaxNoticeAI corpus. Because many previews are limited to the opening paragraphs of the judgment, the substantive reasoning and final operative direction of the court may not be fully captured here. Researchers should always retrieve and read the complete judgment text from the official court portal or indiankanoon.org before drawing any conclusion about the holding.

Before relying on any ruling in this compilation, readers should verify whether the judgment has been challenged in a higher court (e.g., whether a High Court ruling has been appealed to the Supreme Court), whether any interim stay has been granted against the order, and whether the matter has since been decided on remand. The status of a case can change materially after the date of the order indexed here.

For maintenance proceedings specifically, researchers should additionally cross-check the applicable procedural rules under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, where it has superseded the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and verify any relevant guidance that may bear on the statutory interpretation issues raised in the judgment.

Source

All cases listed above are drawn from the TaxNoticeAI structured legal corpus (16,101 Indian tax judgments, CBIC circulars, ITAT rulings, AAR rulings, GSTAT rulings), sourced from indiankanoon.org and official court portals.

Section 125 CrPC Maintenance & Customs: 12 High Court and Supreme Court Rulings (2026)