Bar Council of India Notice

Disclaimer & Confirmation

As per the rules of the Bar Council of India, an advocate is not permitted to solicit work or advertise. By clicking “I Agree” below, you acknowledge and confirm that:

you are seeking information about Advocate Manish Jha of your own accord and for your own information and use; there has been no advertisement, personal communication, solicitation, invitation or inducement of any kind whatsoever from Advocate Manish Jha or the chamber to solicit any work through this website; the information made available here is provided only on your specific request; and no information on this website is to be construed as legal advice, nor does its use create any advocate-client relationship.

⚖  E-397, 4th Floor, Tagore Garden Extension, New Delhi – 110027 Mon–Sat  ·  +91 98738 50301  ·  legal@advocatemanishjha.com
Advocate Manish Jha Criminal · Civil · Family Law — New Delhi ☎  Consult the Chamber
Home › Maintenance & Delay
Karnataka High Court · 11 August 2026

No Limitation on Maintenance Claims: 21-Year Delay Not Fatal, Says Karnataka High Court

Dr Justice Chillakur Sumalatha sets aside a Family Court order that rejected a maintenance petition solely because it was filed two decades after the alleged abandonment.

☎  Speak to the Chamber Chamber & Location

Can a wife who approaches the court decades after her husband abandoned her be turned away for delay alone? In Smt. Bhagya & Anr. v. Sri Nagegowda (RPFC No. 284 of 2025, decided 11 August 2026, reported late September), the Karnataka High Court held she cannot: Chapter IX of the CrPC “nowhere mentions” any time within which a maintenance claim must be raised, and a Family Court order dismissing a 2022 petition because the abandonment dated to 2001 was unsustainable.

Two decades between abandonment and claim

The parties married in 1994; a daughter was born in 1999. According to the wife, dowry harassment followed and the husband abandoned her in 2001. A maintenance petition filed in 2004 was dismissed in 2007 for non-prosecution. In 2022 — some 21 years after the alleged abandonment — the wife and daughter filed afresh. DNA testing during the proceedings confirmed the respondent’s paternity of the daughter.

The Family Court dismissed the 2022 petition on a single ground: the enormous delay. The wife and daughter carried the matter to the High Court in revision.

The High Court’s reasoning

The statute contains no clock. Chapter IX of the CrPC — the maintenance chapter — prescribes no period within which a wife or child must claim. Courts cannot import a limitation that Parliament chose not to enact.
A continuing right. The need for maintenance is not a one-time cause of action that expires; it subsists from day to day. A claimant who endured years without approaching the court does not thereby forfeit the right.
Delay is not a merits finding. Dismissing a petition on delay alone leaves the actual statutory questions — neglect or refusal to maintain, inability to maintain oneself, the respondent’s means — entirely unexamined.

Holding that the first petitioner was entitled to maintenance, the Court remanded the case to the Family Court, Mysuru, to fix the quantum and to decide the daughter’s entitlement for the period after she attained majority, within three months.

The position in Delhi practice

The principle travels well beyond Karnataka. Under Section 144 of the BNSS, 2023 — the successor to Section 125 CrPC — the ingredients remain neglect or refusal to maintain and the claimant’s inability to maintain herself; nothing in the provision imposes a limitation on institution. Delhi Family Courts routinely see claims filed long after separation, often triggered by a late collapse in the claimant’s support network, and the enquiry goes to merits, means and quantum rather than to the calendar.

Arrears are different from maintainability. By the proviso to Section 144(3) BNSS (as under the first proviso to Section 125(3) CrPC), enforcement of an amount due ordinarily requires application within one year of it falling due. The right to claim, and the right to execute particular arrears, run on different rules.
The start date is in the court’s discretion. Maintenance is generally awarded from the date of application, following the Supreme Court’s framework in Rajnesh v. Neha; long pre-petition delay usually translates into the claim starting later, not into dismissal.
Old evidence still matters. A remand two decades on means proving marriage, paternity and means with whatever record survives — certificates, photographs, and, as in this case, DNA evidence can carry decisive weight.

For respondents, delay remains a legitimate field of cross-examination and argument on quantum and on the date from which maintenance should run. What it is not — after this decision — is a shortcut to dismissal without trial of the statutory questions.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is there a limitation period for filing a maintenance petition?

No statutory limitation applies to instituting a claim under Section 125 CrPC — now Section 144 of the BNSS, 2023. The right to maintenance is a continuing one, arising afresh so long as the inability to maintain oneself and the relationship subsist. Delay may affect questions such as the date from which maintenance runs, but not the maintainability of the claim.

Does delay affect anything at all in maintenance cases?

It can bear on arrears and on credibility assessments, and courts examine long gaps when fixing the date from which maintenance is payable. What this judgment forbids is treating delay as a threshold bar that defeats the petition without examining merits.

What happened to the earlier petition dismissed for non-prosecution?

An earlier claim filed in 2004 had been dismissed in 2007 for non-prosecution. The High Court did not treat that dismissal as extinguishing the right; the fresh petition remained maintainable because the entitlement to maintenance continues as long as the statutory conditions are met.

What did the High Court finally order?

It held the first petitioner entitled to maintenance on the merits, and remanded the matter to the Family Court at Mysuru to determine the quantum — and the second petitioner's claim for the period after attaining majority — within three months.

Sources

Note: This article is general information about the law and is not legal advice. It does not create an advocate-client relationship. The position stated is as at 1 October 2026 and may have changed since. Readers should verify any provision or decision referred to against the official text and seek advice on their own circumstances.