Bombay High Court
Sangita Chawla D/O Satish Kumar Chawla vs Suryanarayan Ganesh S/O K N Ganesh on 2 September, 2025
Author: Madhav J. Jamdar
Bench: Madhav J. Jamdar
2025:BHC-AS:37173 40 WP 5267.2024.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.5267 OF 2024
Mrs. Sangita Chawla D/o Mr. Satish ...Petitioner
Kumar Chawla
Versus
Mr. Suryanarayan Ganesh S/o Mr. K.N. ...Respondent
Ganesh
Ms. Kokila Kalra, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Gopalkrishna R. Hegde, Advocate for the Respondent.
CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATED : 2nd September 2025
JUDGMENT:
1. Heard Ms. Kokila Kalra, learned Counsel appearing for the
Petitioner and Mr. Hegde, learned Counsel appearing for the
Respondent.
2. The challenge in this Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India is to the legality and validity of the Order
dated 4th December 2023 passed by the learned Judge, Family
Court, Mumbai in the Interim Application No.39 of 2019 i.e.
Exhibit-14 in Petition No.A-276 of 2018 to the extent of directing
payment of maintenance from the date of passing of the impugned
Order instead of from the date of filing the application.
Dusane
40 WP 5267.2024.DOC
3. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner relied on the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha1
and more particularly on paragraph 113 of the same. She
therefore, submitted that the learned Family Court should have
directed payment of interim maintenance from the date of filing of
the Application.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Hegde, learned Counsel for the
Respondent submitted that without any Order passed by any
Court, the Respondent i.e. father was paying Rs.25,000/- per
month as maintenance and also investing Rs.1,50,000/- annually
in the name of the daughter in "Sukanya Saving Account". He
therefore submits that the Order passed is a valid order and
therefore, in the facts and circumstances the same should not be
interfered with.
5. Perusal of the record shows that the learned Judge, Family
Court has passed the following operative Order on 4 th December
2023 :-
1 (2021) 2 SCC 324
Dusane
40 WP 5267.2024.DOC
"1. The application at Exh.14 is partly allowed.
2. The petitioner is directed to pay interim
maintenance of Rs.50,000/- per month to the
daughter from the date of passing this order.
3. The petitioner is directed to deposit the interim
maintenance amount in the designated account of the
daughter on or before 10th day of each month as per
English Calendar.
4. The petitioner husband is directed to pay
Rs.25,000/- to the respondent towards cost of
litigation."
(Emphasis added)
6. The reasons given by the learned Judge of the Family Court
are reflected in paragraph nos. 9 to 12, which reads as under :
"9. The relation between the parties is not disputed.
The respondent has not sought any maintenance for
herself and has only sought maintenance for her
daughter. Because she appears to be employed and
earning salary of Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/- per
month which is also revealed from her affidavit of
assets and liabilities vide Exh.22.
10. On perusal of affidavit of assets and liabilities of
the petitioner it appears that his educational
qualification is that B.E. MBA and his monthly income
is to the tune of Rs.4,90,000/- per month. It also
appears that he is paying Rs.25,000/- per month in
saving account and also Rs.1.5 Lakh annually in
Sukanya Saving Account.
Dusane
40 WP 5267.2024.DOC
11. Be it so it appears that the daughter is with the
respondent and it is not expected that she should alone
maintain the daughter. The petitioner being father
obligation is cast upon him to contribute towards the
daughter. Even though it appears that he is
contributing Rs.25,000/- per month and also investing
Rs.1,50,000/- Annualy in the name of daughter in
Sukanya saving account. But above amount is not
sufficient if the needs of daughter are considered.
Therefore, in such contingency it would be just and
appropriate to grant Rs.50,000/- per month towards
the interim maintenance of the daughter and
Rs.25,000/- towards litigation expenses.
12. But even though application for interim
maintenance was filed on 22.03.2019, but the written
arguments are recently filed in the month of June
2023 the parties. Therefore, in such contingency
interim maintenance to the daughter is granted from
the date of order and not from the application."
(Emphasis added)
7. Thus, it is clear that the learned Judge has taken into
consideration various aspects including that the Petitioner- mother
is earning about Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/- per month, the
Petitioner has not sought any maintenance for herself and has
sought maintenance only for her daughter and that the Respondent
is earning Rs.4,90,000/- per month. The Court has also taken into
consideration the aspect that Rs.25,000/- per month is being
Dusane
40 WP 5267.2024.DOC
contributed by the husband for the daughter's maintenance and
also husband is investing Rs.1,50,000/- annually in the name of
daughter in Sukanya Saving Account. The learned Judge, Family
Court further observed that the said amount is not sufficient for
the maintenance of the daughter.
8. Admitted position is that the daughter is a special child. It is
also an admitted position that the said Order dated 4 th December
2023 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court is not challenged
by the Respondent-father. It is also an admitted position that the
child is staying with the Petitioner-mother and mother is single
handedly looking after the child. Thus, the only challenge raised by
the Petitioner-mother is direction to the Respondent-father to pay
maintenance from the date of passing of the Order and not from
the date of filing of the application. The learned Judge for
directing payment of interim maintenance from the date of passing
of the Order has given reason to the effect that even though the
application for interim maintenance was filed on 22 nd March 2019,
the written arguments were filed in the month of June 2023 and
therefore, the interim maintenance to the daughter is to be granted
Dusane
40 WP 5267.2024.DOC
from the date of the Order and not from the date of the
application.
9. The Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh (supra) has
considered this aspect and issued directions concerning the same.
The relevant discussions is to be found in paragraphs 109 to 113,
which reads as under:
"109. The judgments hereinabove reveal the divergent
views of different High Courts on the date from which
maintenance must be awarded. 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) CrPC, it
would be appropriate to grant maintenance from the
date of application in all cases, including Section 125
CrPC. In the practical working of the provisions relating
to maintenance, we find that there is significant delay
in disposal of the applications for interim maintenance
for years on end. It would therefore be in the interests
of justice and fair play that maintenance is awarded
from the date of the application.
110. In Shail Kumari Devi v. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak
[Shail Kumari Devi v. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak, (2008)
9 SCC 632 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 839] , this Court held
that the entitlement of maintenance should not be left
to the uncertain date of disposal of the case. The
enormous delay in disposal of proceedings justifies the
award of maintenance from the date of application. In
Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena [Bhuwan Mohan Singh
Dusane
40 WP 5267.2024.DOC
v. Meena, (2015) 6 SCC 353 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 321 :
(2015) 4 SCC (Cri) 200], this Court held that repetitive
adjournments sought by the husband in that case
resulted in delay of 9 years in the adjudication of the
case. The delay in adjudication was not only against
human rights, but also against the basic embodiment of
dignity of an individual. The delay in the conduct of the
proceedings would require grant of maintenance to
date back to the date of application.
111. The rationale of granting maintenance from the
date of application finds its roots in the object of
enacting maintenance legislations, so as to enable the
wife to overcome the financial crunch which occurs on
separation from the husband. Financial constraints of a
dependent spouse hamper their capacity to be
effectively represented before the court. In order to
prevent a dependant from being reduced to destitution,
it is necessary that maintenance is awarded from the
date on which the application for maintenance is filed
before the court concerned.
112. In Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse [Badshah v.
Urmila Badshah Godse, (2014) 1 SCC 188 : (2014) 1
SCC (Civ) 51] , the Supreme Court was considering the
interpretation of Section 125 CrPC. The Court held :
(SCC p. 196, para 13)
"13.3. ... purposive interpretation needs to be
given to the provisions of Section 125 CrPC.
While dealing with the application of a
destitute wife or hapless children or parents
under this provision, the Court is dealing with
the marginalised sections of the society. The
purpose is to achieve "social justice" which is
Dusane
40 WP 5267.2024.DOC
the constitutional vision, enshrined in the
Preamble of the Constitution of India. The
Preamble to the Constitution of India clearly
signals that we have chosen the democratic
path under the rule of law to achieve the goal
of securing for all its citizens, justice, liberty,
equality and fraternity. It specifically
highlights achieving their social justice.
Therefore, it becomes the bounden duty of the
courts to advance the cause of social justice.
While giving interpretation to a particular
provision, the court is supposed to bridge the
gap between the law and society."
113. It has therefore become necessary to issue
directions to bring about uniformity and consistency in
the orders passed by all courts, by directing that
maintenance be awarded from the date on which the
application was made before the court concerned. The
right to claim maintenance must date back to the date
of filing the application, since the period during which
the maintenance proceedings remained pending is not
within the control of the applicant."
(Emphasis added)
Thus, what the Supreme Court has said that there is significant
delay in disposal of the applications for interim maintenance and
the delay is for many years. It would therefore be in the interests of
justice and fair play that maintenance is awarded from the date of
the application. The Supreme Court has directed that the
Dusane
40 WP 5267.2024.DOC
maintenance be awarded from the date on which the application
was made before the court concerned and the right to claim
maintenance must date back to the date of filing the application,
since the period during which the maintenance proceedings
remained pending is not within the control of the applicant.
10. In view of the above legal position, it is necessary to
consider the grounds raised by the Petitioner in the Writ Petition in
support of her contention that the maintenance to the child should
be awarded from the date of the application and not from the date
of the order. The said grounds are raised in Clause (vii), (viii), (ix)
and (x) of the Writ Petition, which read as under :-
"vii. That the Ld. Judge failed to consider to give the
Interim Maintenance from the date of the Application,
instead granted it from the date of the order.
viii. That the Ld. Judge failed to consider that the
delay took place in the hearing of the Interim
Maintenance Application as the Court as the Presiding
officer was on leave and/or the Petitioner was absent
and many holidays were there also which can be
reflected from the Roznama. Hereto annexed an marked
as EXHIBIT "F" copy of the Roznama.
ix. That the Ld. Ought to have considered that Post
March 2020 to 2021 the Corona Pandemic was also there
and the national lock down took place and therefore the
matter has not proceeded;
Dusane
40 WP 5267.2024.DOC
x. That the Ld. Judge failed to consider the assets &
liability documents produced in the court and the special
need and limited career option as the daughter is
challenged with learning disability and therefore the
order passed is bad in law."
(Emphasis added)
11. Thus, it is very clear that the above observations of the
Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh (supra) are squarely
applicable to the present case.
12. Although, it is the contention of Mr. Hegde, learned Counsel
for the Respondent that the Respondent was voluntarily paying
maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month and therefore the
maintenance has been directed to be paid from the date of the
order, however, said contention is not correct as the learned Judge
has passed the order directing payment of maintenance from the
date of the order on the ground of delay in the disposal of the
application. The said reasoning is directly contrary to what has
been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh (supra).
13. Apart from that, it is required to be noted that the Petitioner-
mother is single handedly looking after the child and the child is
the special child. Thus, it is necessary that the Respondent-father
Dusane
40 WP 5267.2024.DOC
shall at least contribute financially. Thus, in view of the law laid
down by the Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh (supra) and
also in the facts and circumstances, it has to be directed that the
interim maintenance of Rs.50,000/- per month to the daughter
shall be paid from the date of the application and not from the
date of passing of the Order.
14. Accordingly, the impugned Order dated 4th December 2023
to the extent indicated above is modified.
15. At this stage, Mr. Hegde, learned Counsel appearing for the
Respondent seeks stay of this Order. However, as in the impugned
Order, it has been recorded that the salary of the husband is
Rs.4,90,000/- per month and as the child is the special child, who
has been single handedly looked after by the mother i.e. the
Petitioner, no case is made out for granting said request.
Accordingly, the said request is rejected.
16. However, in the facts and circumstances, the Petitioner is
granted time to pay the arrears. The arrears be paid in six equal
monthly instalments.
Dusane
40 WP 5267.2024.DOC
17. The Writ Petition is disposed of in above terms with no order
as to costs.
(MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.)
Dusane
