Interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC can be granted from application date without special reasons, rules Gauhati HC

The petitioner and respondent married on 16 August 2011, and a daughter was born to them on 10 July 2014.

Following matrimonial discord, the petitioner instituted divorce proceedings under Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954.

The respondent thereafter filed a proceeding under Section 125 CrPC before the Family Court, seeking monthly maintenance of ₹75,000 and interim maintenance of ₹50,000.

By an ex parte order dated 5 January 2026, the Principal Judge, Family Court No. 1, Kamrup (M), directed the petitioner to pay interim maintenance of ₹10,000 per month to the respondent and ₹8,000 per month to their minor daughter, with effect from the date of filing of the application.

The petitioner challenged the order, contending that interim maintenance could be granted from the date of application only upon recording special reasons under Section 125(2) CrPC, and also objected to the respondent’s delayed filing of statements of assets and liabilities.

The respondent disputed the maintainability of the petition and defended the order on the basis of Rajnesh v. Neha.

Whether, while granting interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC from the date of filing of the application, the court is required to record special reasons under Section 125(2) CrPC.

Whether the petition was maintainable under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act against an interlocutory order, or could be considered under Section 482 CrPC.

Section 125(2) CrPC authorises the court to make an order for maintenance or interim maintenance payable either from the date of the order or, if so ordered, from the date of the application; the provision does not expressly require the recording of special reasons for choosing the latter date.

In Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, the Supreme Court held that, to promote uniformity and fairness, maintenance should ordinarily be awarded from the date on which the application is filed, including proceedings under Section 125 CrPC, because delays in maintenance proceedings are not attributable to the applicant.

The High Court also invoked Section 482 CrPC to examine the limited legal issue, without deciding whether a revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act is maintainable against an interlocutory order.

The Court read Section 125(2) CrPC as conferring a choice between the date of the order and the date of the application, but found no statutory requirement that special reasons must be recorded whenever the court selects the date of application.

It further held that the Supreme Court’s direction in Rajnesh applies not merely to final maintenance but also to interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, since interim proceedings may remain pending for substantial periods and the claimant’s entitlement should not be defeated by such delay.

Consequently, the Family Court’s direction granting interim maintenance from the date of filing was consistent with the governing statutory provision and Supreme Court precedent.

The Court treated the matter as a petition under Section 482 CrPC and declined to adjudicate the separate objection concerning the maintainability of a revision against an interlocutory order.

Such an award is permissible and is consistent with the principle in Rajnesh v. Neha that maintenance should ordinarily run from the date of filing.

Finding no infirmity in the Family Court’s ex parte order, the High Court dismissed the revision petition and affirmed the direction to pay ₹10,000 per month to the respondent and ₹8,000 per month to the minor daughter from the date of filing of the maintenance case.