Maintenance quantum for retrospective periods must be proportionately scaled to the husband's actual income during those years.

The parties married on 19.11.2013 according to Hindu rituals; the wife has resided separately since 01.11.2015, alleging cruelty, persistent dowry demands, and ouster from the matrimonial home, while the husband contended she left voluntarily without justifiable cause

The wife instituted proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 29.08.2016, claiming Rs. 25,000/- per month plus Rs. 5,000/- litigation expenses, later amending her claim (21.02.2023) to Rs. 45,000/- per month citing a substantial rise in the husband's income

Interim maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month (07.04.2018) was enhanced to Rs. 20,000/- per month w.e.f. 02.05.2022; the wife also separately received Rs. 6,000/- per month pendente lite in the husband's Section 9 HMA petition, later withdrawn, and the husband's Section 13 HMA divorce petition was dismissed on 23.02.2024 with appeals pending

The Family Court, finding the husband's gross monthly salary to be Rs. 1,24,777/- plus approximately Rs. 1,00,000/- per annum from other sources, awarded maintenance of Rs. 25,000/- per month w.e.f. the date of application, plus Rs. 3,000/- litigation expenses, by order dated 14.08.2024

The husband's net salary was Rs. 52,979/- in September 2016, ranged between Rs. 50,000–70,000/- during 2016–2021, and Rs. 78,000–97,000/- during 2022–2024

In parallel execution proceedings, although consolidated arrears of Rs. 58,000/- were computed (order dated 17.12.2024) and paid by the husband in January–February 2025, the Family Court issued recovery and arrest warrants on 13.02.2026 for an alleged Rs. 36,000/- default

1. Whether the Family Court was justified in awarding a uniform maintenance of Rs. 25,000/- per month retrospectively from the date of the application (29.08.2016), despite the husband's net income being substantially lower during the initial years of the period?

2. Whether the wife is entitled to enhancement of maintenance to Rs. 45,000/- per month?

3. Whether the recovery and arrest warrant dated 13.02.2026 issued in execution proceedings (MJCR No. 694/2022) required independent adjudication in light of the recomputation directed in the connected revisions?

The Court exercised revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. (Sections 438 and 442, BNSS 2023) read with Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, reiterating that such jurisdiction is supervisory and does not entail re-appreciation of evidence absent perversity or error of law

On merits, the Court applied Section 125 Cr.P.C., which aims to prevent vagrancy and destitution by securing a standard of living neither luxurious nor penurious but modestly consistent with family status, as held in Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamla Devi, (1975) 2 SCC 386

Relying on Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, the Court affirmed that maintenance is payable from the date of the application

The benchmark that 25% of the husband's net income ordinarily constitutes just and proper maintenance, drawn from Dr. Kulbhushan Kunwar v. Raj Kumari, (1970) 3 SCC 129 and Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury, (2017) 14 SCC 200, was applied

The Court also followed the Coordinate Bench decision in Rakesh Kashyap v. Smt. Ragini Yadav, CRR Nos. 1050/2025 & 1158/2025 (decided 13.05.2026), which held that retrospective maintenance must be proportionately determined on the husband's net monthly income for each respective financial year

The Court rejected the husband's challenge to the wife's entitlement, holding that the Family Court's findings rested on proper appreciation of evidence and warranted no revisional interference

On quantum, the Court found that the husband's net salary in 2016 was substantially different from his salary at the time of adjudication; applying Rs. 25,000/- per month uniformly from 29.08.2016 would compel payment at approximately 40–50% of his then-net income in the initial years, a proportion bearing no rational relationship to his actual financial capacity during those years

Respectfully agreeing with the Coordinate Bench, the Court directed that maintenance, though payable from the date of application per Rajnesh v. Neha, shall be proportionately computed for the period 29.08.2016 to 31.03.2024 against the husband's net monthly income for each financial year, while remaining fixed at Rs. 25,000/- per month for 01.04.2024 to 14.08.2024

The Court further observed that although the Family Court erroneously considered gross salary, the awarded sum of Rs. 25,000/- approximates 25% of the husband's net salary at adjudication (Rs. 96,774/- plus Rs. 8,333/- per month from other income, totalling Rs. 1,05,107/-), thereby satisfying the prescribed benchmark and rendering the Family Court's approach beyond reproach

While maintenance remains payable from 29.08.2016 per Rajnesh v. Neha, the quantum for the retrospective period 29.08.2016 to 31.03.2024 shall be computed proportionately against the husband's net monthly income for each financial year, and shall remain Rs. 25,000/- per month from 01.04.2024 onwards

The husband was directed to produce Income Tax returns for FYs 2016–17 to 2023–24 before the Executing Court within 30 days, failing which the wife would be entitled to recover maintenance at Rs. 25,000/- per month from 29.08.2016 and the impugned order would stand revived to that extent

Accordingly, CRR No. 4362/2024 was partly allowed (blanket fixation modified), CRR No. 4536/2024 was dismissed with liberty to seek modification upon change in circumstances, and CRR No. 1320/2026 was disposed of in terms of the aforesaid directions