RAKESH SHARMA vs MANJU DEVI

[2026:RJ-JD:22423]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 599/2025
Rakesh Sharma S/o Late Shri Shankar Lal Ji, Aged About 44
Years, Resident Of 24 Azad Chowk Laxmi Bai Nagar Suratgarh
District Sriganganagar
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Manju Devi W/o Rakesh Sharma, Resident Of Near Hari
Ram Ji Temple Old Line Gangashahar Bikaner
2. Tara Devi W/o Late Shri Shanker Lal, Resident Of 24 Azad
Chowk Laxmi Bai Nagar Suratgarh District Sriganganagar
3. Mukesh Sharma S/o Late Shri Shanker Lal, Resident Of 3-
F3 Adarsh Colony Anoopgarh District Sriganganagar
4. Rohini W/o Mukesh Sharma, Resident Of 3-F3 Adarsh
Colony Anoopgarh District Srigananganagar
5. Indu Sharma W/o Dinesh Sharma, Resident Of Ward No
4,5, Near No 5 School Sabji Mandi Purani Abadi
Sriganganagar
6. Dinesh Sharma S/o Bhanwar Lal Sharma, Resident Of
Ward No 4,5, Near No 5 School, Sabji Mandi, Purani Abadi
Sriganganagar
7. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Narendra Thanvi
Mr. Mahendra Thanvi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. SriRam Choudhary, PP
Ms. Sarika Bishnoi
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
REPORTABLE
DATE OF CONCLUSION OF ARGUMENTS : 17/04/2026
DATE ON WHICH ORDER IS RESERVED : 17/04/2026
(Uploaded on 13/05/2026 at 11:30:26 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/06/2026 at 12:25:00 AM)

(2 of 12)
[2026:RJ-JD:22423] [CRLR-599/2025]
FULL ORDER OR OPERATIVE PART : Full Order
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12/05/2026
BY THE COURT:-
GRIEVANCE
1. The instant criminal revision petition under Section 438 read
with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
(hereinafter to be referred as “BNSS”) has been instituted by the
petitioner assailing the order dated 05.05.2025 passed by the
learned Additional District Judge No.2, Bikaner in Criminal Appeal
No.10/2025, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner
against the order dated 27.02.2025 passed by the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.4, Bikaner in proceedings
arising out of an application under Section 12 of the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter to be
referred as “DV Act”) filed by respondent No.1, came to be partly
allowed.
FACTS OF THE CASE
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent
No.1-wife filed an application under Section 12 of the DV Act
before the learned ACJM No.4, Bikaner alleging cruelty,
harassment and dowry demand against the petitioner-husband
and his family members and sought protection, residence,
maintenance and compensation. The petitioner and other
respondents denied the allegations and contended that the
respondent-wife had been residing separately since 16.08.2012
and had initiated false proceedings as a counterblast to the
divorce petition filed by the petitioner. After recording evidence,
(Uploaded on 13/05/2026 at 11:30:26 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/06/2026 at 12:25:00 AM)

(3 of 12)
[2026:RJ-JD:22423] [CRLR-599/2025]
the learned trial court vide order dated 27.02.2025 partly allowed
the application and awarded maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per
month, Rs.5,000/- towards accommodation and compensation of
Rs. 2 lacs to the respondent-wife. The appeal preferred by the
petitioner under Section 29 of the DV Act was partly allowed by
the learned appellate court vide order dated 05.05.2025 whereby
the maintenance amount was modified to Rs.10,000/- per month
starting from 18.11.2014 i.e., the date of presentation of the
application before the learned trial Court till 16.08.2018 being the
date of the petitioner’s appointment in government service, while
the remaining directions of the learned trial court were affirmed.
Aggrieved by these orders, the present revision petition has been
preferred before this Court.
SUBMISSIONS BY THE COUNSELS
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
impugned orders passed by the learned courts below suffer from
patent illegality, perversity and material irregularity inasmuch as
the allegations of domestic violence and cruelty levelled by
respondent No.1 were not substantiated by any cogent evidence.
It was further contended that the respondent-wife had been
residing separately of her own volition and had instituted false
proceedings as a counterblast to the divorce petition preferred by
the petitioner. Learned counsel further urged that prior to the year
2018, the petitioner had no stable source of income and,
therefore, the direction to pay maintenance from the date of filing
of the application is wholly arbitrary and excessive. It was also
(Uploaded on 13/05/2026 at 11:30:26 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/06/2026 at 12:25:00 AM)

(4 of 12)
[2026:RJ-JD:22423] [CRLR-599/2025]
argued that the learned courts below failed to appreciate that
certain respondents were residing separately and no specific
allegations or evidence were available against them. On these
premises, it was prayed that the impugned orders deserve to be
quashed and set aside.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent and
learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the petitioner.
OBSERVATION
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned public
prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the respondents. Perused
the material available on record, more particularly the orders
impugned.
Maintenance: Preventing Starvation, Not Penalising
Husband
6. So far as the issue relating to maintenance is concerned, this
Court is of the firm opinion that the learned courts below have
completely lost sight of the fundamental object and philosophy
underlying maintenance jurisprudence. Maintenance is neither
punitive nor retributive in character. It is not intended to punish
the husband for matrimonial discord nor is it designed to create a
windfall or a mechanism for accumulation of wealth. The true
rationale behind grant of maintenance is to ensure that the
spouse, who lacks sufficient independent means, is not reduced to
destitution, starvation, vagrancy or a life of helplessness. The
object is to provide immediate financial succour and sustenance so
(Uploaded on 13/05/2026 at 11:30:26 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/06/2026 at 12:25:00 AM)

(5 of 12)
[2026:RJ-JD:22423] [CRLR-599/2025]
that the claimant may maintain herself with basic dignity and
survive the hardships arising out of matrimonial separation. The
concept of maintenance, therefore, has to be understood in its
correct perspective. It is essentially a provision for subsistence
and survival. The legislative intent behind such provisions is to
ensure that a spouse is not left abandoned without means to
secure food, shelter and the basic necessities of life. The law
never contemplated that maintenance proceedings would assume
the nature of a money recovery suit or culminate into a colossal
retrospective financial burden incapable of being discharged by a
salaried employee. The courts are required to strike a delicate
balance between the needs of the claimant and the actual paying
capacity of the person directed to pay maintenance.
Legality of Order dated 27.02.2025 passed by learned ACJM
No.4, Bikaner
7. This Court has bestowed its thoughtful consideration to the
order dated 27.02.2025 passed by the learned ACJM No.4, Bikaner
as well as the judgment dated 05.05.2025 rendered by the
learned appellate court and, upon a careful scrutiny of the
material available on record, this Court is constrained to observe
that both the courts below have failed to examine the controversy
in its correct legal perspective.
7.1 The learned trial court, while partly allowing the application
preferred by respondent No.1 under Section 12 of the DV Act,
proceeded not only to award maintenance and residential benefits
but also directed payment of a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards
(Uploaded on 13/05/2026 at 11:30:26 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/06/2026 at 12:25:00 AM)

(6 of 12)
[2026:RJ-JD:22423] [CRLR-599/2025]
alleged mental and physical harassment. The learned appellate
court, though partly modifying the quantum of maintenance for a
limited period, substantially affirmed the findings recorded by the
learned trial court. At the very outset, this Court finds that the
direction issued by the learned trial court for payment of
compensation amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- towards alleged mental
and physical harassment cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
The allegations relating to cruelty, harassment and other
matrimonial offences are already subject matter of criminal
prosecution initiated separately by respondent No.1 and the said
proceedings are admittedly pending consideration before the
competent criminal court. Once the criminal law has already been
set into motion and the allegations are yet to attain judicial finality
upon appreciation of evidence in accordance with law, the courts
exercising jurisdiction under the DV Act ought to have exercised
due restraint in recording findings touching upon the culpability of
the petitioner with regard to the alleged acts of cruelty and
harassment. Any categorical observation or grant of compensation
founded upon disputed allegations, which are yet to be
adjudicated in criminal proceedings, would virtually amount to
pre-judging the controversy and may seriously prejudice the rights
of either side in the pending prosecution.
7.2 The jurisdiction under the DV Act is essentially remedial and
protective in nature. The court is required to examine whether the
aggrieved person requires immediate civil assistance by way of
residence, maintenance, protection or monetary relief so as to
(Uploaded on 13/05/2026 at 11:30:26 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/06/2026 at 12:25:00 AM)

(7 of 12)
[2026:RJ-JD:22423] [CRLR-599/2025]
enable her to live with dignity. Such jurisdiction cannot be
stretched to convert the proceedings into a substitute for criminal
adjudication, particularly when the allegations of cruelty are
seriously disputed and are already pending trial before a
competent criminal court. Therefore, in the considered view of this
Court, except to the limited extent of acknowledging the
undisputed factual position that respondent No.1 is the legally
wedded wife of the petitioner, that she is residing separately and
that there exists reasonable and plausible cause for her separate
residence and that she does not possess sufficient independent
means to maintain herself, no further finding touching upon the
alleged cruelty ought to have been returned by the learned courts
below.
Legality of order dated 05.05.2025 passed by the learned
ADJ No.2, Bikaner
8. The Appellate Court modified the order of the ACJM No.4,
Bikaner and the maintenance amount was modified to Rs.10,000/-
per month starting from 18.11.2014 i.e., the date of presentation
of the application before the learned trial Court till 16.08.2018
being the date of the petitioner’s appointment in government
service, while the remaining directions of the learned trial court
were affirmed. The orders by both the courts below attained
finality in the year 2025.
8.1 This Court is rather disturbed by the peculiar facts emerging
in the present case. The maintenance proceedings, instituted as
far back as on 18.11.2014, remained pending adjudication before
(Uploaded on 13/05/2026 at 11:30:26 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/06/2026 at 12:25:00 AM)

(8 of 12)
[2026:RJ-JD:22423] [CRLR-599/2025]
the learned trial court for almost 10 to 11 years and ultimately
culminated into a direction fastening huge arrears of maintenance
upon the petitioner from the very date of filing of the application.
The petitioner, who is admittedly a salaried employee and who
entered government service only on 16.08.2018, has now been
burdened with retrospective liability running into several lakhs of
rupees. Such an approach, in the considered opinion of this Court,
defeats the very object sought to be achieved by maintenance
law. A monthly maintenance amount may be manageable for a
salaried person if paid periodically from his subsisting earnings.
However, directing payment of arrears accumulated over more
than a decade in one stroke creates an unbearable and oppressive
financial liability, particularly when the delay in adjudication
cannot be attributed solely to the petitioner. For instance, directing
payment of a lump sum amount of Rs. 10 lakhs along with a
monthly payment of Rs. 20,000/- may prove excessively onerous
and, at times, practically impossible for a salaried individual or a
person having limited means. On the other hand, the same person
may reasonably be in a position to regularly pay an amount of
Rs.20,000/- per month.
OPINION
9. The courts cannot remain oblivious to the practical realities
of life. An ordinary salaried employee cannot reasonably be
expected to suddenly discharge arrears accumulated for 10 or 11
years at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month. Such directions,
instead of securing justice, may push the person liable to pay into
(Uploaded on 13/05/2026 at 11:30:26 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/06/2026 at 12:25:00 AM)

(9 of 12)
[2026:RJ-JD:22423] [CRLR-599/2025]
financial ruin and perpetual indebtedness. This Court is further
constrained to observe that if proceedings of maintenance remain
pending for a decade and thereafter retrospective maintenance is
awarded from the date of application, the very essence of
“maintenance” stands diluted. The purpose of maintenance is to
provide immediate support to avoid starvation and destitution. If
the claimant has managed to sustain herself, survive and pursue
litigation for all these years, then grant of huge retrospective
arrears after lapse of a decade cannot be said to advance the
object of immediate sustenance. Rather, it assumes the character
of a monetary decree or financial compensation, which is beyond
the true scope of maintenance jurisprudence.
9.1 The delay in disposal of maintenance proceedings by the
judicial system cannot become a tool for imposing crushing
retrospective liabilities upon either party. Courts are expected to
adopt a realistic, pragmatic and equitable approach while
determining the commencement of maintenance. In the facts of
the present case, this Court is of the considered view that the
ends of justice would be adequately met if maintenance is directed
to be paid from the date of the order instead of from the date of
filing of the application. Such an approach would balance the
rights of respondent No.1 to receive financial support with the
financial capacity and practical limitations of the petitioner and
would also preserve the true spirit and object underlying the law
relating to maintenance.
(Uploaded on 13/05/2026 at 11:30:26 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/06/2026 at 12:25:00 AM)

(10 of 12)
[2026:RJ-JD:22423] [CRLR-599/2025]
10. This Court is of the considered opinion that the underlying
rationale behind the aforesaid principle is to obviate the grave
financial hardship which may be caused on account of imposition
of huge retrospective maintenance liabilities accumulated during
the prolonged pendency of maintenance proceedings. Such
delayed adjudication often results in serious adverse
consequences, inasmuch as the person concerned is suddenly
burdened with discharge of substantial lump-sum arrears after
several years, apart from the continuing obligation of monthly
maintenance. The very object of maintenance jurisdiction is to
provide immediate succour and to save the claimant from
destitution and starvation. Maintenance proceedings, therefore,
ought not to be permitted to linger indefinitely. In cases where
such delay occurs, the responsibility cannot always be attributed
solely to the parties and the systemic delay in adjudication also
cannot be ignored. Consequently, directing payment of
maintenance from the date of application, after inordinate delay in
conclusion of proceedings, may in certain cases operate harshly
and result in an excessively onerous financial burden, particularly
upon a salaried person or a person having limited means, who is
required to simultaneously clear accumulated arrears as well as
continue making monthly payments.
MODIFICATIONS AND DIRECTIONS
11. In light of the discussion made hereinabove and having
regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case,
(Uploaded on 13/05/2026 at 11:30:26 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/06/2026 at 12:25:00 AM)

(11 of 12)
[2026:RJ-JD:22423] [CRLR-599/2025]
the instant revision petition deserves to be disposed of with the
following modifications and directions: –
(i) The order dated 27.02.2025 passed by the learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate No.4, Bikaner is modified to the extent
that, while this Court is of the considered opinion that the
quantum of maintenance awarded by the learned trial Court is
just, proper and commensurate with the financial status and
obligations of the petitioner, however, a slight modification in the
manner of enforcement of the impugned order is found warranted
in the interest of justice. Consequently, the petitioner shall pay a
sum of Rs. 20,000/- per month to respondent No.1 from the date
of the order passed by the learned trial Court i.e. 27.02.2025.
However, the condition imposed by the learned trial Court
directing payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards alleged mental
cruelty is hereby quashed and set aside.
(ii) The order dated 05.05.2025 passed by the learned Additional
District Judge No.2, Bikaner is hereby quashed and set aside,
inasmuch as the direction requiring payment of maintenance from
the date of application till the date of petitioner entering into
government service appears to be wholly unreasonable, excessive
and unsustainable in the eyes of law.
12. It is further clarified that in the event respondent-wife is
receiving any amount towards maintenance pursuant to any other
judicial proceeding or from any other competent forum, the same
shall be duly adjusted/set-off against the amount directed to be
(Uploaded on 13/05/2026 at 11:30:26 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/06/2026 at 12:25:00 AM)

(12 of 12)
[2026:RJ-JD:22423] [CRLR-599/2025]
paid under the order of the learned trial Court as modified by this
Court hereinabove.
VERDICT
13. Accordingly, with the aforesaid modifications and
observations, the present revision petition stands disposed of.
14. Stay petition as well as all pending applications also stand
disposed of.
15. The record of the Courts below be sent back forthwith.
(FARJAND ALI),J
248-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 13/05/2026 at 11:30:26 AM)
(Downloaded on 05/06/2026 at 12:25:00 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)