Interim maintenance too must be granted from date of application: Allahabad high court

Permitting a woman to live in penury, while her application for interim maintenance is decided, cannot be the intent of the law, observes Allahabad HC

The Allahabad high court has held that interim maintenance too must be granted from the date of application and decried the delays in deciding such cases.

The Allahabad high court, in its decision dated December 17, modified the family court’s order and directed that interim maintenance be paid from August 5, 2024, the date on which the application was moved. (REPRESENTATIVE IMAGE)

“Permitting a woman to live in penury, while her application for interim maintenance is decided, cannot be the intent of the law,” the court observed.

Allowing an application filed under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) by the applicant-wife, Sonam Yadav, Justice Rajiv Lochan Shukla emphasised that pendency of the proceedings in court, without any order in favour of the litigant, should not be to the disadvantage of the litigant.

The petitioner’s grievance was that the principal judge, family court, Kaushambi, had granted her interim maintenance only from the date of the court order i.e. April 3, 2025, rather than from the date she had filed the application i.e. August 5, 2024.

The Allahabad high court, in its decision dated December 17, modified the family court’s order and directed that interim maintenance be paid from August 5, 2024, the date on which she moved the application for interim maintenance.

The high court added that, as with the final maintenance orders, interim maintenance too, must also be granted from the date of filing the application.

The petitioner’s counsel relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Rajnesh vs. Neha (2021), arguing that the apex court had settled the law that maintenance should normally be awarded from the date of the application. On the other hand, the counsel for the husband argued that the directions in Rajnesh v. Neha applied to final orders of maintenance and did not extend to applications seeking interim orders.

Justice Shukla, referring to the apex court’s observations, rejected the husband’s arguments, observing,”A provision which has been enacted for the benefit of a particular class has to be given an interpretation, which promotes the object of the relief provided. Once interim maintenance has to be awarded, the only reasonable conclusion which can be drawn from the directions of the Supreme Court is that the said interim maintenance must also be granted from the date of the application.”

The high court noted that the wife had moved the main application under section 125 criminal procedure code (CrPC) as far back as October 2023 and the specific application for interim maintenance was filed on August 5, 2024. The court noted that, despite the statutory mandate that such applications be disposed of within 60 days, objections were filed only in January 2025, and the impugned (under challenge) order was passed in April 2025, well beyond the stipulated period.