Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC must ordinarily be awarded from the date of application.

The Petitioner No. 1 (wife) and Respondent No. 1 were married on May 27, 2001, and have two daughters (Petitioners 2 and 3)

Due to matrimonial discord, the parties separated, and the petitioners filed a maintenance petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. on March 5, 2016, alleging neglect by the respondent despite his gainful employment

On September 25, 2019, the Family Court awarded interim maintenance of ₹5,500/- per month to each petitioner (total ₹16,500/-).

However, the court directed payment to commence from January 1, 2019, rather than the date of application (March 5, 2016), citing "peculiar facts" without further elaboration

The petitioners challenged this limited aspect of the order

Whether the Family Court was justified in awarding interim maintenance from January 1, 2019, instead of the date of filing the application

Whether the quantum of maintenance awarded (₹16,500/- total) was adequate and commensurate with the respondent's income and the petitioners' needs

The Court relied on Section 125(2) of the Cr.P.C., which grants judicial discretion to award maintenance from either the date of the order or the date of the application

This discretion is governed by the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in *Rajnesh v. Neha (2021)*, which established that to prevent financial hardship and account for systemic delays, maintenance should generally be awarded from the date of application in all cases

This was further reaffirmed in *Shahjahan v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025)*, emphasizing that Section 125 is beneficial social justice legislation intended to prevent destitution

The High Court observed that while the Family Court has discretion under Section 125(2), it must be exercised based on discernible principles and supported by cogent reasons

The High Court found that the Family Court failed to provide any specific justification for departing from the "normal rule" of granting maintenance from the date of application, noting that the three-year delay in adjudication was not attributable to the petitioners

Regarding the respondent's claims of retrenchment and medical issues, the Court noted these occurred later (2020) and could be grounds for modification under Section 127 Cr.P.C., but they did not absolve him of his obligation for the initial period when he was gainfully employed

For the quantum, the Court found ₹5,500/- per head reasonable based on the respondent’s assessed net income of approximately ₹35,000/- at the time

The High Court modified the Family Court's order dated September 25, 2019, to reflect this commencement date, while maintaining the quantum of ₹5,500/- per month per petitioner

The respondent was directed to adjust any amounts already paid against the arrears now due