Recently, the Delhi High Court held that interim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, should ordinarily be granted from the date of filing of the application, and not from a later date unless the court records cogent reasons for deviating from this principle. The Court emphasised that depriving dependants of maintenance for the period during which proceedings remain pending would defeat the very purpose of the social welfare legislation.
Brief facts:
The case arose from a petition filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, wherein the wife and her two minor daughters sought maintenance alleging neglect and refusal by the respondent-husband despite his having sufficient means. The petition, instituted in 2016, was pending before the Family Court, which eventually granted interim maintenance of ₹5,500 per month to each of the three claimants (₹16,500 in total). However, the Family Court directed that the maintenance would be payable only from 01 January 2019, rather than from the date of filing of the application. Aggrieved by this limited aspect of the order, the wife and daughters approached the High Court through a criminal revision petition, challenging the postponement of the commencement of interim maintenance.
Contentions of the Petitioners:
The Petitioners contended that the Family Court erred in directing payment of interim maintenance only from a later date despite the petition having remained pending for several years. The Counsel argued that the delay in adjudication was not attributable to the petitioners and that the respondent, who had sufficient income at the relevant time, had failed to maintain his wife and daughters during the pendency of the proceedings. The Petitioners further submitted that the Family Court had not recorded any cogent or special reasons for deviating from the settled principle that maintenance should ordinarily be awarded from the date of filing of the application. Consequently, the petitioners sought modification of the order so that maintenance would be made payable from the date of institution of the petition.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Respondent opposed the revision petition and argued that the Family Court had exercised its discretion judiciously while directing payment of interim maintenance from a later date. The Counsel contended that the law does not mandate that maintenance must invariably be granted from the date of filing of the application and that courts retain discretion depending on the facts of each case. The Respondent also submitted that his financial circumstances had deteriorated due to loss of employment and other liabilities, including medical issues and obligations towards family members. The Counsel further alleged that the petitioners had access to other financial resources and had concealed certain financial details, and therefore, no interference with the Family Court’s order was warranted.
Observation of the Court:
The Court noted that although Section 125(2) CrPC confers discretion on courts to grant maintenance either from the date of application or from the date of order, the prevailing judicial approach favours granting maintenance from the date of filing of the application in order to avoid financial hardship to the dependent spouse and children.
The Bench emphasised that Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice intended to prevent destitution and vagrancy. The Bench observed that delays in adjudication of maintenance petitions are often systemic and beyond the control of the claimant, and therefore, such delays should not operate to the disadvantage of the dependent spouse or children.
The Court observed 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.”
It further noted that the Family Court had postponed the commencement of maintenance by nearly three years without disclosing any clear or cogent reason. It held that discretionary powers must be exercised on discernible principles, and in the absence of recorded reasons, such exercise of discretion becomes vulnerable to judicial interference.
The Court held that maintenance proceedings, being a welfare measure, dependent spouses and children cannot be denied financial support for the period during which the proceedings remain pending, thereby reaffirming the principle that maintenance should ordinarily relate back to the date of application.
The decision of the Court:
In light of the foregoing discussion, the Court modified the Family Court’s order and directed that interim maintenance be payable from the date of filing of the petition under Section 125 CrPC, instead of the later date fixed by the Family Court, while maintaining the quantum of maintenance already awarded.
Case Title: Sanyogita Gupta & Ors. Vs. Ashok Kumar Gupta
Case No.: Crl.Rev.P. 520/2024 & Crl.M.A. 17787/2023
Coram: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. S. D. Windlesh,
Advocate for the Respondent: Adv. Nitin Saluja, Adv. Ishita Soni,
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
