### Maintenance Awarded After Decade-Long Litigation Should Typically Operate Prospectively From Order Date to Prevent Onerous Financial Ruin

Respondent No. 1 (wife) filed an application under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence (DV) Act in 2014, alleging cruelty and dowry demands.

The Trial Court (ACJM No. 4, Bikaner) on 27.02.2025 awarded ₹20,000/month maintenance, ₹5,000/month for accommodation, and ₹2,00,000 as compensation for harassment.

On appeal, the Additional District Judge (ADJ) modified the maintenance to ₹10,000/month retrospectively from the date of application (18.11.2014) until the petitioner joined government service (16.08.2018), while affirming other directions.

The petitioner challenged these orders via a criminal revision petition under Sections 438 and 442 of the BNSS, arguing that retrospective liability after an 11-year delay was oppressive.

1. Whether the grant of ₹2,00,000 as compensation for mental and physical harassment is sustainable when criminal proceedings for the same allegations are pending.

2. Whether maintenance should be awarded retrospectively from the date of application in cases where significant systemic delay occurred in adjudication.

The Court applied the principles of matrimonial maintenance jurisprudence, emphasizing that maintenance is remedial and protective, not punitive or retributive.

It interpreted the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, noting that the object is to prevent destitution and vagrancy, rather than serving as a mechanism for wealth accumulation.

The court also highlighted the principle of judicial restraint, holding that civil courts in DV proceedings should not pre-judge criminal culpability for cruelty (e.g., IPC Section 498-A) that is yet to be adjudicated by a competent criminal court.

The High Court reasoned that since the wife survived for 11 years during the litigation, the immediate purpose of maintenance—to prevent starvation—was diluted, and a massive accumulated retrospective debt would financially ruin a salaried employee.

The Court found the Trial Court’s award of ₹2,00,000 compensation improper because it prejudged allegations of cruelty currently pending in a separate criminal trial, which could prejudice the petitioner’s defense.

Regarding the delay, the Court held that a "realistic, pragmatic, and equitable approach" is required; periodic maintenance is manageable, but lump-sum retrospective arrears spanning a decade create an "unbearable and oppressive" burden not solely attributable to the petitioner.

The Trial Court’s order of 27.02.2025 was modified: the ₹20,000 monthly maintenance was affirmed but made effective only from the date of the Trial Court's order (27.02.2025) rather than 2014. The ₹2,00,000 compensation for mental cruelty was quashed.

The Court directed that any maintenance paid in other proceedings must be adjusted/set-off against this amount.