Interim maintenance accrued under a subsisting order remains payable despite subsequent rejection of final maintenance.

The respondent-wife filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking maintenance of ₹15,000 per month from the applicant-husband; the parties had married on 26 January 2004 and had a son.

During the pendency of the proceedings, the Family Court directed the husband to pay interim maintenance of ₹7,000 per month from the date of the application under an order below Exh.39 dated 9 July 2015.

The husband challenged the interim order before the High Court, which directed the Family Court to decide the main maintenance proceedings but did not set aside or modify the interim maintenance order.

The Family Court subsequently rejected the wife’s application for final maintenance on 23 May 2016. The wife thereafter sought recovery of arrears of interim maintenance for the period from 29 August 2013 to 23 May 2016.

By a common order dated 21 July 2016, the Family Court allowed the recovery applications and directed payment of the arrears at ₹7,000 per month.

Whether the husband remained liable to pay interim maintenance accrued under a subsisting interim order during the pendency of the Section 125 CrPC proceedings, notwithstanding the subsequent rejection of the wife’s claim for final maintenance.

Whether the Family Court’s order directing recovery of arrears of interim maintenance disclosed any jurisdictional error, material irregularity, perversity, or patent illegality warranting interference in revision.

Whether the husband was entitled to a refund of interim maintenance already paid or recovered pursuant to the interim order.

Section 125 CrPC provides a statutory remedy for maintenance to persons unable to maintain themselves, and an interim-maintenance order creates an independent and enforceable obligation for the period during which it remains operative.

Such liability accrues from month to month and is not retrospectively extinguished merely because the principal maintenance proceedings are ultimately dismissed.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, recognizes interim maintenance as a social-justice measure and emphasizes the effective enforcement and recovery of maintenance orders.

In revision, the High Court’s jurisdiction is limited to correcting jurisdictional error, material irregularity, patent illegality, or perversity; it does not permit interference with a lawful order merely because another view may be possible.

The interim order directing payment of ₹7,000 per month was operative throughout the pendency of the proceedings and had not been set aside, modified, or nullified by any superior court or by the Family Court.

The High Court’s earlier order only directed expedited adjudication of the main maintenance application and did not disturb the interim-maintenance direction.

Accordingly, the husband’s liability for the period during which the interim order remained in force had accrued as a vested and enforceable obligation.

The subsequent rejection of final maintenance concerned the wife’s entitlement going forward and did not retrospectively invalidate the interim relief already granted.

Since the Family Court had not ordered any refund and the husband could not demonstrate jurisdictional error, perversity, or material irregularity, the recovery order was not amenable to revision.

The wife was therefore entitled to recover ₹7,000 per month for the period from 29 August 2013 to 23 May 2016, and the husband was not entitled to a refund of the amount paid or recovered.

The revision application was dismissed, Rule was discharged, and the Family Court’s common order dated 21 July 2016 was confirmed.