Maintenance Meant To Prevent Starvation, Not Impose 'Crushing Financial Burden' On Husband: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court has held that directing payment of maintenance from the date of application, after inordinate delay in conclusion of proceedings, in certain cases can result in an excessively onerous financial burden on the husband, especially upon a salaried person or someone having limited means. While underscoring the true objective of maintenance as prevention of immediate destitution, the bench of Justice Farjand Ali observed that delays in maintenance proceedings could not be attributed solely onto the parties. Hence, court cannot impose responsibility of such delay on either of the parties.In this light, the Court held that the ends of justice would be met if maintenance was directed to be paid from the date of order instead of from the date of filing of application. “The delay in disposal of maintenance proceedings by the judicial system cannot become a tool for imposing crushing retrospective liabilities upon either party. Courts are expected to adopt a realistic, pragmatic and equitable approach while determining the commencement of maintenance.”For context, the Court was hearing a criminal revision petition challenging the order of the appellate court wherein the appeal preferred by the petitioner against order under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violent Act, 2005 (“DV Act”), was only partly allowed. The petitioner's wife (respondent) had filed an application under the DV Act seeking protection, maintenance and compensation, in 2014. Trial Court allowed the application in 2025 and awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 20,000 per month retrospectively since 2014, along with Rs. 2 lakhs as compensation. Petitioner filed an appeal, wherein the appellate court, reduced the monthly maintenance amount to Rs. 10,000 per month, while affirming the rest of the order. Hence, the present appeal was filed before the Court. The Court started by observing that the courts below had forgotten the objective behind the jurisprudence of maintenance, which was neither punitive or retributive, nor to punish the husband for matrimonial discord. It was opined that maintenance was intended to provide immediate support and prevent vagrancy of the spouse who lacked sufficient means. “The law never contemplated that maintenance proceedings would assume the nature of a money recovery suit or culminate into a colossal retrospective financial burden incapable of being discharged by a salaried employee. The courts are required to strike a delicate balance between the needs of the claimant and the actual paying capacity of the person directed to pay maintenance.”While underscoring the delay of 10-12 years in passing order in the maintenance proceedings, the Court opined that the directions of the lower courts had fastened huge arrears upon the petitioner amounting to several lakhs of rupees. The Court held that courts could not remain ignorant of the practical realities of life, and a salaried person could not reasonably be expected to suddenly discharge such kind of liabilities. It was observed that while monthly maintenance was manageable, directing payment of arrears of so many years created an unbearable and oppressive financial liability, especially when the delay in adjudication was not solely attributable to the petitioner. The Court further highlighted that if the proceedings remained pending for a decade, the very essence of maintenance was diluted. It was opined, “The purpose of maintenance is to provide immediate support to avoid starvation and destitution. If the claimant has managed to sustain herself, survive and pursue litigation for all these years, then grant of huge retrospective arrears after lapse of a decade cannot be said to advance the object of immediate sustenance. Rather, it assumes the character of a monetary decree or financial compensation, which is beyond the true scope of maintenance jurisprudence.”In this background, the Court held that maintenance proceedings could not be allowed to linger indefinitely and in cases where it does, the responsibility of such delay could not be attributed solely onto the parties. Accordingly, the order of the lower courts was modified, and the petitioner was directed to pay the maintenance only from the date of passing of the order in 2025. Title: Rakesh Sharma v Manju Devi & Ors. Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 195Click Here To Read/Download Order

Maintenance Meant To Prevent Starvation, Not Impose 'Crushing Financial Burden' On Husband: Rajasthan High Court

Nupur Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Maintenance Meant To Prevent Starvation, Not Impose 'Crushing Financial Burden' On Husband: Rajasthan High Court

Nupur Agrawal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers