SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 4801

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Swarana Kanta Sharma, J
Sanyogita Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Ashok Kumar Gupta – Respondent
CRL.REV.P. 520/2024|CRL.M.A. 17787/2023



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S. D. Windlesh
For the Respondents: Nitin Saluja, Ishita Soni

Maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, should ordinarily be awarded from the date of filing the maintenance application, as the provision is a beneficial social welfare legislation, and any departure from this rule requires cogent and justifiable reasons from the court.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 125 - Maintenance - Date of commencement - Standard practice - It is established law that maintenance should ordinarily be awarded from the date of filing the application to prevent financial hardship and destitution - The Family Court failed to provide cogent reasons for departing from this rule by delaying the effective date, lacking justification for the prolonged interregnum. (Paras 12-14)

(B) Appellate Review - Judicial Discretion - Scope - While Courts have discretion to set the date of maintenance, this must be balanced against the protective and beneficial object of the statute - Appellate interference is warranted when discretion is exercised without discernible principles. (Paras 13, 15)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners (wife and two daughters) filed a claim for maintenance in 2016. The Family Court awarded interim maintenance but limited the commencement date to 01.01.2019 instead of the date of the application (05.03.2016) without recording special reasons for the delay.

Findings of Court:
The High Court held that the Family Court erred in arbitrarily shifting the effective date of maintenance. Relying on settled precedents, the Court directed that maintenance shall be payable from the date of the original application.

Issues: Whether the Family Court was correct in granting interim maintenance effective from a date after the application filing, and whether the quantum of maintenance required adjustment.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. is a social welfare legislation intended to prevent vagrancy; therefore, in the absence of valid reasons for delay in judicial proceedings, the right to claim maintenance must date back to the institution of the petition.

Result: Petition allowed; impugned order modified to make maintenance effective from 05.03.2016.

Table of Content
1. overview of the background facts and the impugned order awarding interim maintenance. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. contention of the parties regarding the effective commencement date of maintenance. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. legal precedents mandate maintenance from the filing date to prevent destitution. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
4. final ruling modifying the impugned order in line with supreme court precedents. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)

JUDGMENT

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J

1. By way of the present petition, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 25.09.2019 [hereafter „impugned order‟], passed by the learned Family Court, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi [hereafter „Family Court‟] in CC No. 389/2017, filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereafter „Cr.P.C.‟], by the petitioners, claiming maintenance from the respondent.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that the petitioner no. 1 is the legally wedded wife of the respondent no. 1. They were engaged to each other on 01.01.1999 and were married on 27.05.2001 in Delhi as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. Out of the said wedlock, two daughters, i.e., petitioner no. 2 and petitioner no. 3, were born on 30.03.2002 and 29.08.2005 respectively. Due to matrimonial discord between the parties, the relationship between them deteriorated and they started living separately. Thereafter, the petitioner, in the year 2016, had filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereafter „Cr.P.C.‟], inter alia alleging that she and her minor daughters had been neglected and refused maintenance by the respondent, despite his having sufficient means to maintain them. It was averred that she was a housewife and had no independent source of income to sustain herself or to provide for the education and daily needs of the children. It was further stated that none of the petitioners were earning any income and were dependent upon financial assistance and loans received from friends and relatives for their survival and the educational expenses of the children. It was stated that the respondent was gainfully employed and earning a regular income sufficient to maintain the petitioners but had failed to discharge his legal and moral obligations towards them.

3. By way of the impugned order dated 25.09.2019, the learned Family Court has awarded interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5,500/- in favour of each of the petitioners, i.e. Rs. 16,500/-, however, only with effect from 01.01.2019. The relevant observations are as under:

“...11. The present petition has remained pending since 05.03.2016. I am of the opinion that in the peculiar facts of this case and for the purpose of the present Order, the interim maintenance be awarded to the petitioners with effect from 01.01.2019 and not from the date of filing of this petition as is the normal rule. The respondent is thus directed to pay Rs.5500/- per month as interim maintenance to each of the petitioners (total Rs.16,500/- per month) with effect from 01.01.2019 till the disposal of the present petition.

12. It is also made clear that the observations made in the present order are for the purpose of disposal of the present interim· maintenance application. The directions issued under this order would be subject to the further directions as may be passed at the time of disposal of this petition. It is also clarified that any amount received by the petitioners towards maintenance from the respondent in any other proceedings or in the present proceedings shall be adjusted against the amount payable under this order.

13. The application for grant of interim maintenance stands disposed off accordingly...”

4. The petitioners are aggrieved only by the limited aspect of the impugned order – directing payment of interim maintenance with effect from 01.01.2019, and not from the date of filing of the petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., i.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top