In a significant ruling aimed at shielding women from financial distress during prolonged legal battles, the Allahabad High Court has decreed that interim maintenance must be granted from the date the application is filed in court, and not from the later date when the court passes its order.
Court Addresses Delay in Maintenance Cases
The bench of Justice Rajiv Lochan Shukla was hearing a petition filed by Sonam Yadav, who challenged an order from the family court in Kaushambi, Uttar Pradesh. The family court had granted her interim maintenance, but directed that it would be payable only from April 3, 2025 – the date of its own order. Yadav had filed her application for interim maintenance much earlier, on August 5, 2024.
Justice Shukla observed that it is a "sad reality" that applications for interim maintenance often remain pending for long periods, despite a statutory mandate for disposal within 60 days. The court emphasized that a woman cannot be left to live in penury while awaiting a court's decision.
Key Arguments and Legal Precedent
Advocate Rajiv Sawhney, representing the applicant-wife, relied heavily on the Supreme Court's landmark 2021 judgment in Rajnesh vs Neha. He argued that the settled legal principle that maintenance should ordinarily be awarded from the date of the application applies with equal force to interim maintenance.
Opposing this, the husband's counsel, Advocate Shashank Kumar, contended that the Supreme Court's directions were specific to final maintenance orders and did not extend to interim relief under Section 125 of the CrPC.
The High Court, however, rejected the husband's argument. Justice Shukla held that a beneficial provision like Section 125 CrPC, designed to protect a vulnerable class, must be interpreted in a manner that advances its objective of providing timely support.
Ruling and Its Implications
Modifying the family court's order, the Allahabad High Court directed that the interim maintenance be paid to Sonam Yadav from August 5, 2024 – the date of her application – and not from April 2025.
The court underscored that the very act of filing an application demonstrates the immediate need for financial support. "A litigant comes before the Court for a cause of action, which arises 'in praesenti' (at the present time). Pendency of the proceedings in Court, without any order in favour of the litigant, should not be to the disadvantage of the litigant," the bench stated.
This ruling reinforces the intent behind maintenance laws and serves as a crucial directive to lower courts to ensure that procedural delays do not deprive dependents of essential financial aid from the moment they seek judicial intervention.
