Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma held that ad-interim maintenance, being a provisional relief granted on a prima facie assessment, must not be made payable from the date of the maintenance application but only from the date of the court order granting such relief. The Court upheld the Family Court's grant of ad-interim maintenance to the claimant spouse but modified the direction that had made such maintenance payable from the date of filing of the application. The Court stated that "ad-interim maintenance may be granted with effect from the date of the order passed by the Court." Accordingly, while affirming the Family Court's jurisdiction to grant such interim relief without a separate application, the High Court set aside the retrospective imposition of the payment obligation.

The dispute arose from matrimonial discord between a couple married on 18.04.2016 in Jhajjar, Haryana. No children were born from the wedlock. The husband, the petitioner in the revision petition, is employed as a medical representative in the private sector with an income of Rs. 17,907/- per month, while the respondent wife had studied up to the 12th standard and was alleged by the petitioner to be running a home-based beauty parlour with her sister.

Also Read: Supreme Court Acquits All Accused In Murder Case | Holds High Court Proceeded On Presumptions And Assumptions Based On The Story Scripted By The Prosecution Without Any Legal Evidence

The petitioner contended that the respondent had voluntarily left the matrimonial home on 10.05.2021 with her belongings, citing past instances, including a similar departure in January 2020. He claimed that no maintenance was sought by her during her earlier stay at her parental home. The petitioner further alleged that the respondent filed multiple civil and criminal complaints against him and his family as a counterblast to his petition for restitution of conjugal rights.

Conversely, the respondent claimed that the petitioner and his family subjected her to mental and physical cruelty, including dowry-related harassment. She contended that she had left the matrimonial home in 2020 but had returned upon assurances of respectful treatment. However, she alleged continued cruelty and was allegedly thrown out in May 2021, after which she began residing with her parents in Delhi.

In July 2022, the respondent filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. During pendency of that application, the Family Court passed an order dated 24.05.2024 granting ad-interim maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- per month to the respondent, directing that the maintenance would be payable from the date of filing the application. The Court further directed the petitioner to clear arrears within three months and continue paying maintenance by the 10th of each calendar month.

Following the passing of this order, the petitioner did not comply with the maintenance payment. The Family Court, in its subsequent order dated 26.09.2024, addressed the objections raised by the petitioner, which included the contention that there was no provision under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for ad-interim maintenance, especially from the date of filing. It was also argued that a prior maintenance application filed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, had been dismissed.

The Family Court rejected these arguments, holding that the dismissal under the PWDV Act did not preclude relief under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and reiterated the grant of ad-interim maintenance. The Court recorded: "The provisions of Domestic Violence Act and provision of 125 Cr.P.C before this Court works in different spheres... ad-interim maintenance may be granted by the court and it is within the discretion of the court to grant it from the date of order or from the date of filing of application."

The petitioner filed a criminal revision petition challenging both orders on grounds including lack of judicial application, absence of a separate application for ad-interim maintenance, reliance on inapplicable precedents, and erroneous retrospective application of the order.

The petitioner's counsel cited judgments such as Manish Divedi v. Jyotsana: 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10492 and Bharat Hegde v. Saroj Hegde: 140 (2007) DLT 16 to argue that ad-interim maintenance should be limited to a prima facie determination and should not be equated with interim or final relief.

The respondent’s counsel, while opposing the petition, argued that Rajnesh v. Neha: (2021) 2 SCC 324 permitted grant of interim relief from the date of application, and that the Family Court's order was well within legal parameters. It was further argued that proceedings under the PWDV Act and under Section 125 Cr.P.C. operate in different domains and are not mutually exclusive.

The High Court identified four central issues for consideration:

1. Whether ad-interim maintenance can be equated with interim maintenance.

2. Whether the judgement in Rajnesh v. Neha applies to ad-interim maintenance.

3. Whether ad-interim maintenance can be granted in the absence of a specific application.

4. Whether ad-interim maintenance is payable from the date of filing or from the date of the order.

On the first issue, the Court stated: "Interim relief is a temporary relief granted by the Court after hearing both parties... Ad-interim relief is a provisional relief granted ex-parte or at the initial stage... based on a prima facie opinion." Distinguishing between the two, the Court held that ad-interim maintenance is to be treated as a tentative measure.

Citing Manish Divedi v. Jyotsana, the Court recorded that "ad-interim maintenance is a tentative arrangement, granted at a preliminary stage... based on the material available on record."

Regarding the scope of Section 125 Cr.P.C., the Court observed: "The primary aim of this provision is to offer prompt financial support... ensuring they are not left destitute or neglected." Citing Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena and Chaturbhuj v. Sitabai, the Court reiterated that Section 125 serves to alleviate distress, and is a summary remedy not limited by religious considerations.

In discussing whether ad-interim maintenance is recognized judicially despite its absence from the statutory text, the Court referred to multiple precedents including Rajesh Chaudhary v. Nirmala Chaudhary and the Kusum Sharma v. Mahinder Kumar Sharma series of judgments. It stated: "Where the adjudication of an application for maintenance is likely to be delayed, ad-interim maintenance may be granted based on the respondent’s admitted income."

The Court detailed procedures laid down in these cases for efficient handling of maintenance claims and observed: "The Court is empowered to grant ad-interim maintenance based on the admitted financial capacity of the respondent... to avoid undue hardship to the claimant pending final determination."

Addressing the requirement for a separate application, the Court referred to Inder Singh v. Sumitra, where it was held that "making of an application seeking interim maintenance is not a pre-condition" for granting such relief. However, the Court acknowledged that in Rajnesh v. Neha, the Supreme Court required a concise application accompanied by an affidavit of assets and liabilities.

Yet, the High Court clarified: "Ad-interim maintenance serves as an immediate relief, awarded at an earlier stage... to prevent immediate financial distress... before adjudicating the interim maintenance application on merits." It declined to extend the application requirement to ad-interim relief.

On the key issue of effective date of ad-interim maintenance, the Court observed: "To direct payment of ad-interim maintenance from the date of filing of the application... would result in imposing a financial burden for a past period without... adequate judicial examination." It further stated: "Such retrospective imposition equates ad-interim maintenance with interim maintenance... This is neither the intent nor the function of ad-interim relief."

Accordingly, the Court held: "Ad-interim maintenance may be granted with effect from the date of the order passed by the Court."

The High Court concluded that the Family Court was within its jurisdiction to grant ad-interim maintenance. The grant of Rs. 6,000/- per month was found reasonable, considering the petitioner's income of Rs. 17,907/-.

It stated: "The quantum of Rs. 6,000/- per month... is reasonable and cannot be said to be excessive or arbitrary."

Also Read: Allahabad High Court Upholds Conviction For Kidnapping And Attempted Rape | Delay In FIR Immaterial | Victim’s Testimony Proves Forced Abduction And Undressing

The Court further held that the absence of a specific application for ad-interim maintenance did not vitiate the order: "Ad-interim maintenance is a discretionary relief... there is no requirement in law mandating a separate written application."

However, on the issue of the starting date of maintenance, the High Court modified the Family Court’s order. It recorded: "Since ad-interim maintenance is a tentative relief... directing its payment retrospectively... would not be justified." Accordingly, it modified the operative date:

"Impugned orders dated 24.05.2024 and 26.09.2024 are upheld to the extent they grant ad-interim maintenance... but are modified to the extent that such maintenance shall be payable from the date of the said order, i.e., 24.05.2024, and not from the date of filing of the application."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Ms. Puja Jakhar, Mr. Harshit Prakash, Mr. Krishan Chauhan, Advocates

For the Respondents: Mr. DK Sharma, Advocate

Case Title: XXX v YYY

Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:5114

Case Number: CRL.REV. P. (MAT.) 172/2024

Bench: Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma