Change In Financial Circumstances Cannot Justify Denial Of Maintenance Retrospectively When Husband Had Sufficient Earnings: Delhi High Court

The Court observed that disputes regarding financial transactions or encashment of fixed deposits also do not absolve a husband of his statutory obligation to maintain his dependents.

The Court was hearing a criminal revision petition filed by a wife and her two daughters challenging an order of the Family Court directing payment of interim maintenance only from January 2019 instead of from the date of filing of the maintenance petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

A Single Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed: “The contention of the respondent regarding subsequent change in circumstances, including cessation of employment, medical issues, loans, or other liabilities, may be relevant for proceedings under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. for modification of maintenance, but cannot retrospectively justify denial of maintenance for the period during which he admittedly had sufficient earning capacity. Similarly, disputes regarding encashment of FDRs or other financial transactions do not absolve the statutory obligation to maintain the wife and minor children”.

Background

The petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband were married in 2001 and had two daughters from the marriage. Following matrimonial disputes, the parties began living separately. In 2016, the wife filed a petition under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance for herself and the two minor daughters on the ground that the husband had neglected and refused to maintain them despite having sufficient means.

It was pleaded that the wife had no independent source of income and that the children’s educational and daily needs were being met through financial assistance and loans obtained from relatives and friends. The respondent was stated to be gainfully employed and capable of maintaining the family, but had failed to discharge his legal obligations.

By an order dated 25 September 2019, the Family Court granted interim maintenance of ₹5,500 per month to each of the petitioners (₹16,500 in total), but directed that it would be payable only from 01 January 2019 rather than from the date of filing of the petition in March 2016.

Aggrieved by this limited aspect of the order, the petitioners approached the High Court seeking modification of the effective date of maintenance.

Court’s Observation

The High Court noted that the principal issue before it was whether the Family Court was justified in directing payment of interim maintenance from January 2019 rather than from the date of filing of the petition under Section 125 CrPC.

Referring to the Supreme Court decisions in Rajnesh v. Neha and Shahjahan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court reiterated that although Section 125(2) CrPC grants discretion to award maintenance either from the date of the application or from the date of the order, the normal rule is that maintenance should be granted from the date of filing of the application. The Court emphasised that maintenance proceedings often remain pending for long periods and that the dependent spouse or children should not be disadvantaged due to delays in adjudication.

The Court further observed that Section 125 CrPC is a social welfare provision intended to prevent destitution and vagrancy. The object of the provision is protective rather than punitive, and therefore maintenance ordinarily relates to the date of institution of proceedings when the entitlement is ultimately established.

Examining the Family Court’s order, the High Court found that while the Family Court had referred to “peculiar facts” of the case, it had failed to record any clear or cogent reasons for postponing the commencement of maintenance by nearly three years. The Court held that although the power to determine the effective date of maintenance is discretionary, such discretion must be exercised on discernible principles supported by adequate reasoning.

The Court also noted that the respondent had been gainfully employed at the relevant time, with an assessed net income of approximately ₹35,000 per month, and there was no finding that he was incapable of contributing to the maintenance of his wife and daughters during the pendency of the proceedings.

Addressing the respondent’s argument regarding subsequent financial hardship, the Court held that changes such as cessation of employment, medical conditions, or financial liabilities may be relevant in proceedings under Section 127 CrPC for modification of maintenance, but cannot retrospectively justify denial of maintenance for a period during which the husband had sufficient earning capacity.

The Court further clarified that disputes relating to encashment of fixed deposits or other financial dealings between the parties do not absolve the statutory obligation to maintain the wife and minor children.

On the question of quantum, the Court held that the amount of ₹5,500 per month awarded to each petitioner by the Family Court could not be considered excessive in view of the respondent’s income and the needs of the two daughters pursuing education. At the same time, the petitioners’ request for substantial enhancement was found to be disproportionate to the income assessed by the Family Court.

Conclusion

The High Court held that the Family Court erred in directing payment of interim maintenance only from January 2019 without assigning adequate reasons. It accordingly modified the impugned order and directed that interim maintenance be payable from the date of filing of the petition under Section 125 CrPC, i.e., 05 March 2016, subject to adjustment of amounts already paid.

The criminal revision petition was disposed of with the above modification.

Cause Title: SG & Ors. v. AKG (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:1808)

Appearances

Petitioners: S.D. Windlesh, Advocate

Respondent: Nitin Saluja and Ishita Soni, Advocates

Click here to read/download Judgment