Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court upheld the Family Court’s grant of ₹6,000 per month as ad-interim maintenance to the wife under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code during the pendency of her interim maintenance application. However, it clarified that ad-interim maintenance cannot be granted retrospectively from the date of the application and should only be operative from the date of the order granting it. The petition challenging the grant was partly allowed by modifying the payment start date while affirming the maintenance quantum and jurisdiction of the Family Court to grant such relief.
Facts
The parties married in 2016 and had no children. The husband, working as a medical representative earning ₹17,907 per month, claimed that the wife, who studied up to 12th standard, ran a beauty parlour and left the matrimonial home due to temperamental differences. He alleged she filed multiple criminal and civil cases as counterblasts to his restitution petition.
The wife alleged mental and physical cruelty by the husband and his family over dowry demands and stated she was forced to leave in 2021, residing with her parents since then. She filed an application under Section 125 CrPC in July 2022, seeking maintenance.
The Family Court, on 24 May 2024, granted ad-interim maintenance of ₹6,000 per month from the date of application filing, also directing arrears to be cleared within three months. On 26 September 2024, the Family Court rejected the husband’s objections regarding the lack of provision under Section 125 for ad-interim maintenance and differences with DV Act proceedings, directing him to clear arrears or face consequences including defence striking.
Issues
- Whether ad-interim maintenance can be equated with interim maintenance.
- Whether ad-interim maintenance requires a specific application.
- Whether ad-interim maintenance should be granted from the date of filing or the date of order.
- Whether the Family Court correctly applied the law and precedents while granting ad-interim maintenance.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The husband argued the Family Court erred in granting ad-interim maintenance:
- The wife’s DV Act maintenance application was previously dismissed.
- Section 125 CrPC does not explicitly provide for ad-interim maintenance, particularly from the filing date.
- Rajnesh v. Neha pertains to interim maintenance post affidavits, not ad-interim relief.
- The Family Court failed to consider the parameters in Bharat Hegde v. Saroj Hegde and the tentative nature of ad-interim maintenance under Manish Divedi v. Jyotsana.
- No specific application was filed for ad-interim maintenance.
He sought the setting aside of the Family Court’s orders.
Respondent’s Arguments
The wife argued:
- Section 125 CrPC is a beneficial provision ensuring dependents’ sustenance and should not be frustrated by technicalities.
- Rajnesh v. Neha guidelines include granting maintenance expeditiously, and in cases of delay, ad-interim relief is justified.
- Dismissal under the DV Act does not bar a Section 125 CrPC claim as both statutes operate independently.
- The Family Court correctly assessed the husband’s admitted income while granting reasonable ad-interim maintenance to address immediate hardship.
Analysis of the Law
- Section 125 CrPC ensures dependent spouses are not left destitute and is secular in nature.
- While there is no express statutory provision for “ad-interim maintenance” under Section 125 CrPC, judicial pronouncements such as Kusum Sharma series and Rajesh Chaudhary v. Nirmala Chaudhary permit ad-interim maintenance in appropriate cases, especially where admitted income is on record.
- Ad-interim maintenance differs from interim maintenance in timing, scope, and purpose, providing immediate relief based on a prima facie view, pending a full interim maintenance determination.
- In Inder Singh v. Sumitra, the Delhi High Court held that the absence of a specific application should not preclude granting interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
- Rajnesh v. Neha directs the filing of affidavits for interim maintenance but does not specifically cover ad-interim maintenance.
- The objective of ad-interim maintenance is to prevent immediate financial hardship, not to compensate retrospectively.
Precedent Analysis
1. Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324
Directed that interim and final maintenance should generally be from the date of application but did not address ad-interim maintenance.
2. Kusum Sharma v. Mahinder Kumar Sharma (2014-2020)
Held that ad-interim maintenance can be granted based on admitted income pending interim maintenance determination.
3. Inder Singh v. Sumitra (2019 SCC OnLine Del 9485)
Held a separate application is not mandatory for granting interim maintenance.
4. Bharat Hegde v. Saroj Hegde (2007) DLT 16 and Manish Divedi v. Jyotsana (2019 SCC OnLine Del 10492)
Clarified principles of assessing quantum of maintenance and the tentative nature of ad-interim maintenance.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court held:
- Ad-interim maintenance is distinct from interim maintenance and is meant for immediate relief based on a prima facie assessment.
- The Family Court was justified in granting ad-interim maintenance despite no specific application, given the husband’s admitted income and the wife’s immediate needs.
- However, directing ad-interim maintenance retrospectively from the filing date would blur the distinction between ad-interim and interim maintenance.
- The Court found it unjust to impose retrospective liability before full judicial assessment, clarifying that ad-interim maintenance should operate from the date of the order granting it.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court:
1. Upheld the grant of ₹6,000 per month ad-interim maintenance based on the husband’s admitted income.
2. Clarified ad-interim maintenance should commence from the date of the order (24 May 2024), not from the filing date.
3. Dismissed the petition in part while modifying the payment start date.
4. Reaffirmed the right of dependents to immediate relief under Section 125 CrPC while preserving the legal distinction between ad-interim and interim maintenance.
Implications
- Clear guidance for Family Courts: Ad-interim maintenance may be granted to prevent destitution but only from the order date.
- Affirms the protective scope of Section 125 CrPC while ensuring procedural clarity.
- Encourages expeditious disposal of interim maintenance applications to avoid dependency on prolonged ad-interim relief.
- Establishes that prior DV Act dismissal does not bar a Section 125 CrPC claim.
FAQs
1. Can ad-interim maintenance be granted without a specific application under Section 125 CrPC?
Yes, courts can grant ad-interim maintenance based on urgent necessity and admitted income, even without a specific application.
2. Is ad-interim maintenance payable from the application filing date?
No, the Delhi High Court clarified it is payable only from the order date.
3. Does dismissal under the Domestic Violence Act bar maintenance under Section 125 CrPC?
No, both are independent remedies, and denial under one does not preclude relief under the other.
