The Orissa High Court has held that maintenance granted under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act should take effect from the date the application is filed, not from the date the order is passed, especially when the claimant has continued to pursue interim relief. The court also enhanced the monthly maintenance payable to a wife to ₹10,000 and awarded her an additional compensation of ₹3 lakh, taking the total compensation to ₹6 lakh.
Justice R K Pattanaik delivered the judgment on December 3, and it was uploaded on Monday, modifying orders passed by lower courts in cross-revision petitions filed by Nidaganti Laxmi Rajyam and her husband, Madan Mohan Patnaik.
The wife had filed an application under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act in 2013. In April 2014, the trial court directed the husband to pay ₹6,000 per month as maintenance and ₹3 lakh as compensation. The appellate court later increased the monthly maintenance to ₹8,000 while retaining the compensation amount.
Both parties challenged the order before the High Court: the wife seeking enhancement and additional relief, and the husband questioning the financial directions.
Justice Pattanaik ruled that granting maintenance only from the date of order was “not justified,” as the wife had not abandoned her interim prayer and had pursued the proceedings consistently since 2013.
The court noted that both husband and wife were elderly and had been living separately for several years. While both earned pensions, the court found the wife’s pension—less than ₹10,000—placed her at a clear financial disadvantage compared to the husband’s “reasonably better” pension.
Accordingly, the monthly maintenance was enhanced to ₹10,000.
A significant direction of the court was that arrears must be recalculated at the enhanced rate with effect from the date of the 2013 application and cleared either in one lump sum or two installments within three months.
Arrears already stood at ₹9.58 lakh until June 2025 at the earlier ₹8,000 rate.
On compensation, the judge rejected the wife’s claim of ₹10,000 per month towards residence expenses, observing that such an order would not be appropriate considering their age and long separation. However, the court awarded an additional ₹3 lakh over and above the earlier ₹3 lakh compensation, citing her medical needs, ongoing treatment, and absence of support.
The court recorded that the husband had received retirement benefits but had not shared any part of them with his wife. It also took note of the unclear financial condition of their son, observing that the wife appeared responsible for her own well-being.
The husband’s revision petition was dismissed, while the wife’s petition was allowed in part. The directions must be complied with within three months.
