Interim Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Must Be Awarded From Date Of Application: Delhi High Court
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Delhi, Single Bench of Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma, held that interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC must be awarded from the date of filing the application, unless the court provides clear and adequate reasons for departing from that position. The case arose from a petition filed by a wife and her two minor daughters, who challenged a Family Court order granting them maintenance only from a date nearly three years after their petition was instituted. The Court modified the impugned order, directing that maintenance be payable from the date of the original application.
The petitioners, comprising a wife and her two daughters, challenged an order passed by the Family Court, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, in proceedings initiated under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance from the respondent husband. The marriage between the parties had been solemnized according to Hindu rites, and two daughters were born from the wedlock. Due to matrimonial discord, the parties began living separately. The wife alleged that she and her minor daughters had been neglected and refused maintenance by the respondent despite his having sufficient means to support them. She stated that she was a housewife with no independent source of income and that the family’s survival and educational expenses of the children were being met through financial assistance and loans obtained from friends and relatives.
The Family Court, by order dated 25.09.2019, granted interim maintenance of ₹5,500 per month to each of the petitioners, amounting to ₹16,500 per month in total, but directed that the amount would be payable only with effect from 01.01.2019. The petitioners challenged this aspect of the order, contending that interim maintenance should have been granted from the date of filing of the petition in March 2016.
The respondent opposed the revision petition, contending that the Family Court had exercised its discretion appropriately and that the law does not mandate that maintenance must always be granted from the date of application. He further raised contentions relating to changes in his financial condition, alleged financial resources available to the petitioners, and his personal liabilities and medical condition.
The Court recorded that the central issue for consideration concerned the date from which interim maintenance should be made payable. Referring to the legal position governing maintenance claims, the Court observed that “the principal issue which arises for consideration is whether the learned Family Court was justified in directing that interim maintenance shall be payable from 01.01.2019, or whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners are entitled to interim maintenance from the date of filing of the petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.”
The Court examined the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding the commencement of maintenance payments. Referring to precedent, it recorded that “even though a judicial discretion is conferred upon the Court to grant maintenance either from the date of application or from the date of the order in Section 125(2) Code of Criminal Procedure, it would be appropriate to grant maintenance from the date of application in all cases.”
The Court further noted that delays in adjudication should not operate against the dependent spouse or children. In this context, it stated that “the delay in adjudication of maintenance proceedings is ordinarily systemic and cannot be attributed to the dependent spouse or children.”
Considering the reasoning of the Family Court, the High Court found that the order lacked sufficient justification for postponing the commencement of maintenance. The Court recorded that “the impugned order does not disclose any clear or cogent reason for postponing the commencement of maintenance by nearly three years from the date of filing of the petition.”
The Court also examined the nature and purpose of maintenance proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and observed that “Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice intended to prevent destitution and vagrancy.” It further stated that “where a wife and minor children approach the Court alleging neglect and refusal to maintain, and the Court ultimately finds them entitled to maintenance, the normal rule… is that such maintenance should relate back to the date of the application.”
While considering the respondent’s arguments relating to change in financial circumstances and other liabilities, the Court recorded that “the contention of the respondent regarding subsequent change in circumstances… may be relevant for proceedings under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. for modification of maintenance, but cannot retrospectively justify denial of maintenance.”
The Court also assessed the quantum awarded by the Family Court and observed that “the learned Family Court awarded ₹5,500/- per month to each of the three petitioners… Having regard to the respondent’s assessed income at the relevant time and the needs of two growing daughters pursuing education, the said amount cannot be said to be excessive.”
The Court held that “the learned Family Court erred in directing that interim maintenance shall be payable only with effect from 01.01.2019 without assigning adequate reasons. The petitioners herein are held entitled to interim maintenance from the date of filing of the petition, i.e., 05.03.2016. The impugned order dated 25.09.2019 is accordingly modified to this extent, subject to adjustment of any amounts already paid. The present petition stands disposed of. Nothing expressed hereinunder shall tantamount to an expression on the merits of the case.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. S. D. Windlesh, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Nitin Saluja and Ms. Ishita Soni, Advocates
Case Title: Sanyogita Gupta & Ors. v. Ashok Kumar Gupta
Neutral Citation: 2026: DHC:1808
Case Number: CRL.REV.P. 520/2024 & CRL.M.A. 17787/2023
Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
