In a significant ruling aimed at protecting women from financial hardship, the Allahabad High Court has mandated that interim maintenance must be granted from the date an application is filed in court, and not from the later date when the court passes its order. The court expressed strong displeasure over systemic delays in deciding such urgent pleas.
Court Slams Delays, Upholds Women's Rights
A bench of Justice Rajiv Lochan Shukla delivered this crucial order on December 17 while allowing an application filed by Sonam Yadav. The bench observed the sad reality that applications for interim maintenance often remain pending for extended periods, leaving applicants in a precarious financial state.
The court firmly stated that women cannot be made to face financial hardships while courts take their time deciding these pleas. It emphasized that permitting a woman to live in penury during this period cannot be the intent of the law. Maintenance orders are designed to support women and children who have been abandoned or have valid reasons to live separately and lack adequate income.
The Case: A Timeline of Delay
The ruling came in the specific case of petitioner Sonam Yadav. Her legal journey highlighted the procedural delays the High Court criticized:
- She moved the main application under Section 125 of the CrPC in October 2023.
- The specific application for interim maintenance was filed on August 5, 2024.
- Despite a statutory mandate to dispose of such applications within 60 days, objections were filed only in January 2025.
- The family court in Kaushambi passed its order on April 3, 2025, granting maintenance only from that date.
The High Court took a grim view of this timeline, noting the order was passed well beyond the stipulated 60-day period.
Rejecting the Husband's Plea, Citing Supreme Court
Sonam Yadav's grievance was that the family court granted her interim maintenance from the date of its order (April 3, 2025) and not from the date of her application (August 5, 2024). She relied on the Supreme Court's precedent in the landmark case of Rajnesh vs. Neha (2021), which ruled that maintenance should normally be awarded from the date of the application.
The woman's husband opposed the plea, arguing that the Supreme Court's directions in Rajnesh vs. Neha applied only to final maintenance orders and not to interim orders. Justice Shukla firmly rejected this argument.
The bench held that a provision enacted for the benefit of a particular class must be interpreted to promote the object of the relief. "Once interim maintenance has to be awarded, the only reasonable conclusion which can be drawn from the directions of the Supreme Court is that the said interim maintenance must also be granted from the date of the application," Justice Shukla stated.
The court clarified that the filing date of the application itself determines the exigency and immediate need for financial support. Therefore, the grant of maintenance must logically date back to that point.
This ruling reinforces the protective intent of maintenance laws and serves as a strict directive to lower courts to avoid delays and provide timely financial relief from the moment a plea is formally entered.
