Orissa HC orders husband to pay monthly maintenance from date of application

The case stems from a 2013 application filed by the wife under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act

Orissa High Court has ruled that maintenance payments under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act must commence from the date of filing the application, not from when the order is passed, while enhancing a wife’s monthly maintenance to ₹10,000 and directing additional compensation of ₹6 lakh.

The judgement delivered on December 3, was uploaded on high court portal on Monday. (Representative file photo)

Justice R K Pattanaik, in a judgment modified lower court orders in cross-revision petitions filed by Nidaganti Laxmi Rajyam and her husband Madan Mohan Patnaik, stating that directing maintenance from the order date was “not justified” when the wife had not abandoned her claim for interim relief. The judgement delivered on December 3, was uploaded on high court portal on Monday.

The case stems from a 2013 application filed by the wife under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act. The trial court had awarded ₹6,000 monthly maintenance and ₹3 lakh compensation in April 2014. The appellate court later enhanced the monthly maintenance to ₹8,000 but retained the compensation amount, prompting both parties to approach the High Court.

Justice Pattanaik enhanced the monthly maintenance to ₹10,000, observing that both parties were elderly and living separately for years. The court noted that while both had independent incomes, the wife—who retired as a school teacher with a pension below ₹10,000—was at a disadvantage compared to her husband’s “reasonably better” pension.

Significantly, the court directed that arrears be recalculated at the enhanced rate of ₹10,000 from the application date and cleared in a lump sum or two installments within three months. The arrears had accumulated to ₹9.58 lakh till June 2025 at the earlier ₹8,000 rate.

The court dismissed the wife’s claim for ₹10,000 monthly towards residence expenses, stating it would be improper given their advanced age and prolonged separation. However, it awarded an additional ₹3 lakh—beyond the ₹3 lakh compensation—for medical and other expenses, noting the wife’s ongoing treatment needs and lack of support.

The court observed that the husband had received retirement benefits but never shared any amount with his wife. It also noted that their son’s income status was unclear, requiring the assumption that the wife had to care for herself and her son independently.

While dismissing the husband’s revision petition, the court allowed the wife’s petition partially, directing compliance within three months.