IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 36134 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

MR. DHRUVA KUMAR, S/O VENKATESH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, RES. AT NO.2, AMBEDKAR NAGARA, 2^ND CROSS, RAMANAGARA TOWN, RAMANAGARA-560 064.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI K.J GOPI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SMT. PADMA N, W/O DHRUVA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS.

Digitally signed by 2. KUM. ANDYA, SANJEEVINI J D/O DHRUVA KUMAR, KARISHETTY AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS, Location:

High Court of REP. BY HER MOTHER SMT. PADMA N., Karnataka RES. AT WARD NO. 16, OPP. SIDDESHWAR TEMPLE, AMRUTHAGANGE WATER POINT, NEAR BASAVANAGARI ROAD, CHIKKABALLAPURA TOWN, CHIKKABALLAPUR-562 101.

…RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 528 OF BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA 2023 PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, CHIKKABALLAPUR, IN C. MIS. 56/2024, FILED UNDER SECTION 144 OF BNSS VIDE ANNEXURE-B ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FRESH MATTERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the order of the concerned Court directing maintenance at Rs.15,000/- from the date that the husband had deserted the wife or wife deserted the husband, as the case would be. The respondent-wife initiates proceedings before the concerned Court invoking Section 125 of Cr.P.C in Crl.Misc.No.56/2024 seeking maintenance at Rs.50,000/- per month. The concerned Court awards interim maintenance at Rs.15,000/- per month.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the concerned Court has erred in granting maintenance from the date of desertion, but not from the date of application. 3. The law in this regard is too well settled that the maintenance must be granted only from the date of filing the application. The Apex Court, in the case of RAJNESH v.

NEHA, (2021) 2 SCC 324, has held as follows:

"…. …. ….

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. …. …. ….

109. The judgments hereinabove reveal the divergent views of different High Courts on the date from which maintenance must be awarded. Even though a judicial discretion is conferred upon the court to grant maintenance either from the date of application or from the date of the order in Section 125(2) CrPC, it would be appropriate to grant maintenance from the date of application in all cases, including Section 125 CrPC. In the practical working of the provisions relating to maintenance, we find that there is significant delay in disposal of the applications for interim maintenance for years on end. It would therefore be in the interests of justice and fair play that maintenance is awarded from the date of the application.

110. In Shail Kumari Devi v. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak [Shail Kumari Devi v. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak, (2008) 9 SCC 632 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 839] , this Court held that the entitlement of maintenance should not be left to the uncertain date of disposal of the case. The enormous delay in disposal of proceedings justifies the award of maintenance from the date of application. In Bhuwan

Mohan Singh v. Meena [Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, (2015) 6 SCC 353 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 321 : (2015) 4 SCC (Cri) 200] , this Court held that repetitive adjournments sought by the husband in that case resulted in delay of 9 years in the adjudication of the case. The delay in adjudication was not only against human rights, but also