Maintenance under Section 125 should generally be awarded from the application date to prevent hardship, reinforcing rights irrespective of individual economic capabilities.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 125 - Maintenance - Interim maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month awarded to wife from date of the application, not from date of order - Objective of Section 125 is to prevent destitution - Relying on Rajnesh v. Neha, maintenance should generally commence from application date unless specific reasons are provided for delay in implementation (Paras 6, 19, 21).

(B) Revisional Jurisdiction - Under Sections 397 and 401, interference warranted only if order suffers from patent illegality or procedural irregularity - Interim maintenance decisions are discretionary and temporary (Paras 15, 17).

(C) Right to Maintenance - Not dependent solely on academic qualifications but on actual ability to maintain oneself (Paras 18).

Facts of the case:
The wife sought maintenance post-separation, and the Family Court granted Rs. 20,000/- per month, payable from the order date. The wife argued for retroactive payment from the application date. The husband contested the maintenance quantum.

Findings of Court:
The impugned order modified; interim maintenance payable from the application date.

Issues: Whether interim maintenance should commence from the application date or the order date and if the quantum fixed is excessive.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that maintenance must be granted from the application date to prevent hardship, as dictated by Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) and underscored the non-discretionary nature of the maintenance entitlement.

Result: Revision No. 235 allowed in part; Revision No. 257 dismissed.

Table of Content
1. background of the marriage and application for maintenance. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. appellant's claim for retroactive maintenance based on delay. (Para 4 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. respondent's challenge to the quantum of maintenance. (Para 5 , 10 , 11 , 13)
4. scope of revisional jurisdiction in maintenance cases. (Para 15 , 16)
5. principles governing the awarding of maintenance under section 125 crpc. (Para 17 , 19 , 20)
6. modification of payment commencement date for maintenance. (Para 21 , 22)

JUDGMENT :

Ashish Naithani, J.

1.The present two criminal revisions arise out of the same order dated 25.02.2025 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, in Misc. Criminal Case No. 82 of 2019 filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The marriage between Smt. Annu Sharma alias Swati and Dr. Nitin Sharma was solemnized on 04.02.2018. Subsequently, matrimonial disputes arose between them, leading the wife to file an application under Section 125 CrPC on 06.04.2019 seeking maintenance.

3. The Family Court, by its order dated 25.02.2025, granted interim maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month in favour of the wife, but directed that the same would be payable from the date of the order and not from the date of the application.

4. Aggrieved by the above order, Smt. Annu Sharma alias Swati has preferred Criminal Revision No. 235 of 2025, seeking modification so that maintenance is made payable from the date of application (06.04.2019).

5. Conversely, Dr. Nitin Sharma has preferred Criminal Revision No. 257 of 2025, challenging the quantum of maintenance, contending that the amount of Rs.20,000/- per month is excessive and not commensurate with his income and financial obligations.

6. Learned Counsel for the Revisionist, Smt. Annu Sharma alias Swati, appearing in Criminal Revision No. 235 of 2025, submitted that the learned Family Court has committed a manifest error in directing that interim maintenance shall be payable from the date of the order, instead of from the date of the application. It was contended that such a direction defeats the very object and purpose of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is intended to provide immediate relief to a spouse who is unable to maintain herself and to prevent destitution and vagrancy.

7. Learned Counsel further argued that the application under Section 125 CrPC was filed on 06.04.2019 and remained pending for nearly six years before the impugned order came to be passed on 25.02.2025. During this entire period, the Revisionist had no independent source of income and was dependent on her parental family for sustenance. Hence, restricting the benefit of maintenance to the date of the order causes grave prejudice and undermines the beneficial nature of the statute.

8. It was further urged that the learned Family Court has wrongly taken into account the fact that the husband had earlier made payment of arrears pursuant to an ex parte interim order, which was subsequently set aside, as a ground for denying the benefit of maintenance from the date of application. Such a reasoning, it was submitted, is neither legally sustainable nor logically relevant, as those payments were made under a different interim arrangement that no longer holds the field.

9. Learned Counsel relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha , (2021) 2 SCC 324 , wherein it has been authoritatively held that maintenance should ordinarily be granted from the date of the application unless the Court records specific reasons for granting it from a later date. It was argued that in the present case, the Family Court has recorded no such reasons and has thus acted contrary to the settled law. Learned Counsel, therefore, prayed that the impugned order be modified to the limited extent that interim maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month be made payable from 06.04.2019, the date of the original application.

10. In Criminal Revision N

Click Here to Read the rest of this document