New Delhi, March 13. Observing that delays in judicial proceedings cannot disadvantage the claimant, the Delhi High Court has ruled that interim maintenance awarded to a wife and her children under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) should ordinarily be granted from the date the application is filed, rather than from the date of the court’s order.
A single-judge bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma modified an order passed by a Family Court, which had directed the husband to pay interim maintenance to his estranged wife and their two daughters only from January 1, 2019, even though the maintenance petition had been filed in March 2016.
Allowing the revision petition filed by the wife and daughters, the Delhi High Court held that the Family Court had failed to provide any compelling reasons for denying maintenance for nearly three years after the filing of the petition.
“In the absence of clear reasons for postponing the commencement of maintenance by nearly three years from the date of filing of the petition, the exercise of discretion becomes vulnerable to interference,” Justice Sharma said.
The petition filed by the wife alleged that she and her minor daughters had been neglected by the husband despite his having sufficient means to maintain them. She stated that she was a housewife with no independent source of income and had been surviving on financial help and loans from relatives and friends for the children’s education and daily expenses.
The Family Court, while granting interim maintenance in 2019, had directed that the payment would be effective only from January 2019. Challenging this limited aspect of the order, the petitioners argued before the Delhi High Court that maintenance should have been granted from the date of filing of the application.
Referring to the law laid down by the Supreme Court of India in the landmark judgment in Rajnesh v. Neha, the Delhi High Court observed that maintenance proceedings often remain pending for years, and the delay in adjudication should not operate to the disadvantage of the dependent spouse or children.
“Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice intended to prevent destitution and vagrancy. The delay in adjudication of maintenance proceedings is ordinarily systemic and cannot be attributed to the dependent spouse or children,” Justice Sharma said.
The judge further observed that the normal rule is that maintenance should relate to the date of filing of the application since the pendency of proceedings is beyond the control of the claimant. “To deprive them of maintenance for the interregnum period, without adequate justification, would defeat the very purpose of the legislation,” the order added.
At the same time, the Delhi High Court rejected the wife’s plea seeking enhancement of maintenance to Rs 80,000 per month, observing that the demand appeared disproportionate to the income assessed by the Family Court.
Ultimately, Justice Sharma modified the Family Court’s order to the limited extent that interim maintenance will be payable from March 5, 2016 — the date of filing of the petition — instead of January 1, 2019, subject to adjustment of amounts already paid.
The Delhi High Court also clarified that the wife would remain at liberty to seek modification of maintenance under Section 127 of the CrPC before the Family Court if circumstances so warrant.