Interim maintenance orders cease upon termination of substantive proceedings unless expressly continued.

The revisionists, Smt. Sonia Varshney alias Sonia Gupta and her daughter Km. Astha Gupta, challenged the order dated 18 January 2025 by which the Family Court rejected their application under Section 128 Cr.P.C. seeking enforcement of an interim maintenance order.

The revisionists had instituted Maintenance Case No. 365 of 2002 under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

During proceedings arising from an order directing the husband’s employer to furnish his salary particulars, the High Court, in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., directed the husband to pay interim maintenance of ₹18,000 per month to the wife and ₹10,000 per month to the daughter on 28 November 2007.

The maintenance case was dismissed for want of prosecution on 9 December 2010, while the Section 482 proceedings were dismissed for want of prosecution on 19 May 2022.

The marriage was dissolved by a decree of divorce dated 20 May 2019.

The revisionists claimed that the husband had complied with the interim order until May 2019 but thereafter stopped making payments, and sought recovery of arrears at the rate of ₹28,000 per month.

The husband contended that the interim order ceased to operate when the substantive maintenance proceedings were dismissed and was not enforceable under Section 128 Cr.P.C.

Whether the interim maintenance order dated 28 November 2007 continued to subsist and remained enforceable under Section 128 Cr.P.C. after dismissal of Maintenance Case No. 365 of 2002 on 9 December 2010?

Whether the revisionists were entitled to recover arrears on the basis of the interim maintenance order despite the termination of the substantive maintenance proceedings?

Section 128 Cr.P.C. permits enforcement of an order of maintenance, but such enforcement presupposes the existence of a subsisting and legally enforceable maintenance order.

An interim order ordinarily operates only during the pendency of the proceedings in which it is passed and remains subject to the final adjudication or termination of those proceedings.

Relying on National Bal Bhawan v. Union of India, (2003) 9 SCC 671, State of West Bengal v. Banibrata Ghosh, (2009) 3 SCC 250, and Prem Chandra Agarwal v. Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporation, (2009) 11 SCC 479, the Court applied the principle that interim orders merge into the final order and cease to exist once the substantive proceedings are finally disposed of.

The Court also noted the broader social-justice purpose of maintenance legislation discussed in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, but held that those principles could not create or revive an otherwise extinguished interim order in proceedings under Section 128 Cr.P.C.

The High Court found that the Family Court in Maintenance Case No. 365 of 2002 had never passed an order awarding interim maintenance; it had only directed the husband’s employer to produce salary particulars.

The ₹28,000 monthly direction was issued by the High Court only as an interim measure in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. arising from that maintenance case.

Once the underlying maintenance proceedings were dismissed for want of prosecution on 9 December 2010, the interim order could not continue indefinitely because its purpose—granting temporary relief pending adjudication of the maintenance claim—had come to an end.

The order therefore became legally infructuous from the termination of the substantive proceedings, notwithstanding the husband’s subsequent voluntary payments until May 2019.

Its continued existence in the Section 482 record until dismissal of those proceedings on 19 May 2022 did not preserve its enforceability.

Since no subsisting maintenance order existed, Section 128 Cr.P.C. could not be invoked to recover the claimed arrears, and the revisional court was not required to reassess the parties’ financial circumstances or determine a fresh quantum of maintenance.

It held that the interim maintenance order dated 28 November 2007 ceased to operate upon dismissal of the substantive Maintenance Case No. 365 of 2002 on 9 December 2010 and was not enforceable under Section 128 Cr.P.C. thereafter.

The Family Court’s order dated 18 January 2025 was found to contain no illegality, irregularity, or jurisdictional error.

Accordingly, the criminal revision was dismissed.