The Supreme Court, in a recent judgment, has ruled that maintenance awarded under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) should be granted from the date of filing the application, and the applicant should not be prejudiced due to delays in the judicial process. Setting aside the orders passed by the Family Court and the High Court, the Court directed that maintenance be paid to the appellant-wife from the date of her application.
Background:
The appellant was married to the respondent on 24.09.2002 according to Islamic customs. From the wedlock, two children were born. Alleging dowry harassment and cruelty, the appellant stated that she was turned out of the matrimonial home along with her children in May 2008. She subsequently filed a petition under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance of ₹5,000 per month for herself and ₹1,000 per month for each child.
While the Family Court awarded maintenance of ₹1,500 per month to the daughter and ₹1,000 per month to the son, it denied maintenance to the appellant, observing that she had left the matrimonial home without sufficient reason. The High Court upheld this decision.
Arguments:
The appellant contended that she was an illiterate woman with no independent means of livelihood and had been subjected to cruelty and dowry demands. It was argued that there was no basis for the finding that she was living separately without sufficient cause. The appellant also challenged the quantum of maintenance awarded to the children, asserting that it was inadequate considering the passage of time and increase in the husband’s income.
On the other hand, the State supported the findings of the courts below, maintaining that maintenance had rightly been denied to the appellant.
Court’s Analysis:
The Bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah noted that the Family Court had wrongly presumed that there could be no dowry demand merely because it was a second marriage for both parties. The Court criticized this reasoning as conjectural and contrary to established principles, observing that courts should not sermonize on morality and ethics but should decide cases on evidence and law, referring to Nagarathinam v State.
The Court further found that the reliance placed by the Family Court on a compromise deed of 2005 was misplaced, as no admission of misconduct was recorded therein. It held that the appellant’s plea that she was turned out of her matrimonial home after being subjected to cruelty could not be brushed aside.
Regarding the date from which maintenance should be awarded, the Court relied on the decision in Rajnesh v Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, and reiterated that maintenance must ordinarily be granted from the date of application. The Court emphasized:
“Section 125 of the Code is a beneficial piece of legislation which has been enacted to protect the wife and children from destitution and vagrancy and, in the usual course, it would not be appropriate to disadvantage the applicant for the delay in the disposal of the application by the judicial system.”
It further quoted from Rajnesh v Neha:
“It would therefore be in the interests of justice and fair play that maintenance is awarded from the date of the application.”
Decision:
Setting aside the Family Court’s and High Court’s orders, the Supreme Court directed the respondent to pay ₹4,000 per month as maintenance to the appellant-wife, effective from the date of filing of the maintenance application. The maintenance awarded to the children was also ordered to be payable from the date of filing the application. The Court clarified that the maintenance to the daughter would be payable only until her attaining majority.
The Court allowed the appeal and ordered that the arrears of maintenance be deposited within four months, after adjusting any amount already paid.
No order as to costs was made.
