Section 125 reads as under :
"125. (1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain
(a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or
(b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself or
(c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or
(d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself.
A Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate not exceeding five hundred rupees in the whole, as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct;
Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor female child referred to in Clause (b) to make such allowance, until she attains her majority if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband of such minor female child, if married, is not possessed of sufficient means.
Explanation:- For the purpose of this chapter.
(a) "minor" means a person who, under the provisions of the Indian Majority Act, 1875 is deemed not to have attained majority :
(b) "wife" includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from her husband and has not remarried.
(2) Such allowance shall be payable from the date of the order, or if so ordered from the date of the application for maintenance.
(3) If any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person, for the whole or any part of each month's allowance remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made :
Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under this section unless application be made to the Court to levy such amount within a period of one year from the date on which it became due :
Provided further that if such person offers to maintain his wife on condition of her living with him, and she refuses to live with him, such Magistrate may consider any grounds of refusal stated by her, and may make an order under this section notwithstanding such offer, if he is satisfied that there is just ground for so doing.
Explanation:---If a husband has contracted marriage with another woman or keeps a mistress, it shall be considered to be just ground for his wife's refused to live with him.
(4) No wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent.
5)(5) On proof that any wife in whose favour an order has been made under this section is living in adultery, or that without sufficient reason she refuses to live with her husband, or that they are living separately by mutual consent, the Magistrate shall cancel the order.
In Baburao Akaram Kalaskar v. Kusum Baburao Kalaskar, 1980 Mh.L.J 871 the spouses were married on 12th May, 1965 and lived together till August 1969 when the wife left the husband's house and went to her parents house. She lived there for about two and half years and filed a petition under section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act alleging cruel treatment meted out to her by her husband and desertion by the husband who was alleged to have married a second wife. Pending the petition under section 10, the wife filed an application under section 125 of the Code. Pending her application under section 125 her petition under section 10 was dismissed on 28th September, 1977. The Magistrate, however, granted her maintenance in the proceedings under section 125. Revision filed by the husband was dismissed by the Sessions Court and the husband approached the High Court under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code contending that in view of the earlier order passed in a petition under section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the application under section 125 was liable to be dismissed. The learned Single Judge S.W. Puranik, J., took the view that on the same set of facts as were alleged in the two proceedings one under the Hindu Marriage Act and the other under section 125 of the Code, there was no change of circumstance from 1969. The earlier decision of the Civil Court showed that the husband had ill-treated the wife and that he had not remarried and further that he had not driven the wife out of the matrimonial house or withdrawn himself from her society. It was implicit in this decision of the Civil Court that it was the wife who was living away from the husband without a valid cause. In this view of the matter, this Court allowed the husband's petition and dismissed the wife's application for maintenance under section 125.