Interim Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Must Ordinarily Be Granted From Date Of Application: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC should ordinarily be awarded from the date of filing of the application, and not from a later date, unless the court records cogent reasons for deviating from the general rule.

Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma observed, “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 – now consistently affirmed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court – is that such maintenance should relate back to the date of the application. The delay in adjudication of maintenance proceedings is ordinarily systemic and cannot be attributed to the dependent spouse or children. To deprive them of maintenance for the interregnum period, without adequate justification, would defeat the very purpose of the legislation.”

The bench thus modified a Family Court order that had directed payment of interim maintenance to a wife and her two daughters only from January 1, 2019, despite the maintenance petition having been filed in March 2016.

Petitioners had approached the High Court challenging the limited aspect of the Family Court's order which postponed the commencement of interim maintenance.

They contended that the delay in adjudication was not attributable to them and that the respondent-husband, who had sufficient means, had failed to maintain them during the pendency of the proceedings.

The Family Court had granted interim maintenance of ₹5,500 per month each to the wife and the two daughters (totalling ₹16,500 per month).

Examining the issue, the High Court relied on the Supreme Court's decisions in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) and Shahjahan v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025), which emphasise that maintenance should ordinarily be awarded from the date of application to prevent financial hardship caused by delays in judicial proceedings.

The Court observed that Section 125 CrPC is a social welfare legislation intended to protect wives and children from destitution, and that delays in judicial proceedings should not operate to the disadvantage of the claimant.

The High Court also found that the Family Court did 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.

“A discretionary power, though wide, must be exercised on discernible principles and supported by reasons; in the absence of such reasons, the exercise of discretion becomes vulnerable to interference,” it said and directed that interim maintenance shall be payable from March 5, 2016, the date on which petition was first filed.

Appearance: Mr. S. D. Windlesh, Adv. for Petitioners; Mr. Nitin Saluja and Ms. Ishita Soni, Advs. for Respondent

Case title: Sanyogita Gupta & Ors v. Ashok Kumar Gupta

Case no.: CRL.REV.P. 520/2024

Click here to read order