15.12.2025 Item No.11 Ct. No. 6 Aloke/sg CO 3948 of 2025 Arundhati Karmakar (nee Bhattacharya)

Vs Abhijit Karmakar Mr. Siddhartha Sarkar Mr. Sourav Gupta … for the petitioner

1. Affidavit-of-service be kept with the records. Despite service, none appears on behalf of the opposite party/husband.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated September 24, 2025, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court no. 4, Barrackpore, in Matrimonial Suit No. 189 of 2021.

3. By the order impugned, the learned Court allowed the application under Section 36 of the Special Marriage Act upon directing the husband to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per mensum as alimony pendent lite and Rs.20,000/- as litigation costs to the wife, within tenth of each succeeding month according to English calendar.

4. The order was made effective from the date the same was passed, that is, September 24, 2025. The learned Court erred in directing payment of the maintenance pendent lite from the date of the order. It is well settled that maintenance pendent lite has to be awarded from the date of the application. The wife had filed the application on July 25, 2023. Reference is made to the decision of the Apex Court in Rajneesh V. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 paragraphs 96-

101, 110-113 and 131 are quoted below:-

“(a) From the date of application

96. The view that maintenance ought to be granted from the date when the application was made, is based on the rationale that the primary object of maintenance laws is to protect a deserted wife and dependent children from destitution and vagrancy. If maintenance is not paid from the date of application, the party seeking maintenance would be deprived of sustenance, owing to the time taken for disposal of the application, which often runs into several years.

97. The Orissa High Court in Susmita Mohanty v. Rabindra Nath Sahu [Susmita Mohanty v. Rabindra Nath Sahu, (1996) 1 OLR 361] held that the legislature intended to provide a summary, quick and comparatively inexpensive remedy to the neglected person. Where a litigation is prolonged, either on account of the conduct of the opposite party, or due to the heavy docket in courts, or for unavoidable reasons, it would be unjust and contrary to the object of the provision, to provide maintenance from the date of the order.

98. In Kanhu Charan Jena v. Nirmala Jena [Kanhu Charan Jena v. Nirmala Jena, 2000 SCC OnLine Ori 217 : 2001 Cri LJ 879] , the Orissa High Court was considering an application under Section 125 CrPC, wherein it was held that even though the decision to award maintenance either from the date of application, or from the date of order, was within the discretion of the court, it would be appropriate to grant maintenance from the date of application. This was followed in Arun Kumar Nayak v. Urmila Jena [Arun Kumar Nayak v. Urmila Jena, 2010 SCC OnLine Ori 30 : (2010) 93 AIC 726] , wherein it was reiterated that dependants were entitled to receive maintenance from the date of application.

99. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Krishna v. Dharam Raj [Krishna v. Dharam Raj 1991 SCC OnLine MP 6 : (1993) 2 MPJR 63] held that a wife may set up a claim for maintenance to be granted from the date of application, and the husband may deny it. In such cases, the court may frame an issue, and decide the same based on evidence led by parties. The view that the “normal rule” was to grant maintenance from the date of order, and the exception was to grant maintenance from the date of application, would be to insert something more in Section 125(2) CrPC, which the legislature did not intend. Reasons must be recorded in both cases. i.e. when maintenance is awarded from the date of application, or when it is awarded from the date of order.

100. The law governing payment of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC from the date of application, was extended to HAMA by the Allahabad High Court in Ganga Prasad Srivastava v. Addl. District Judge, Gonda [Ganga Prasad Srivastava v. Add