Section 125 CrPC| Ad-Interim Maintenance Can Be Granted from Date Of Application, Even Without Specific Plea: Delhi High Court
The Court said that ad-interim maintenance is a discretionary relief that the Court may award on a prima facie consideration of the material placed on record and the urgent financial needs of the claimant, and as such, there is no requirement in law mandating a separate written application for the same.
Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has upheld the orders of the Family Court directing the husband to pay ad-interim maintenance to his wife from the date of filing of her application under Section 125 CrPC, even in the absence of a specific application for ad-interim relief.
A Single Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed, “In law, interim relief is a temporary relief granted by the Court after hearing both parties, pending final adjudication of the dispute. It is typically granted upon consideration of pleadings, replies, and after evaluating prima facie rights and urgency. In contrast, ad-interim relief is a provisional relief granted ex-parte or at the initial stage, often before the opposite party is served or has filed a reply. It is essentially an urgent measure granted to prevent irreparable harm, subject to further hearing and confirmation.”
The Court added, “It is crystal clear from plethora of judgments…that ad-interim maintenance may be granted by the court and it is within the discretion of the court to grant it from the date of order or from the date of filing of application.”
Advocate Puja Jakhar appeared for the Petitioner, while Advocate D.K. Sharma represented the
Brief Facts
The petitioner-husband challenged Family Court orders directing him to pay Rs. 6,000/- per month as ad-interim maintenance to his wife, the Respondent, from the date of filing the application under Section 125 CrPC.
The Petitioner argued that the Respondent’s earlier application for interim maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act had been dismissed, and that the Family Court erred in granting ad-interim maintenance from the date of application, especially without a specific plea or application for such relief.
The Petitioner also argued that the respondent was not entitled to maintenance since her application under the DV Act was dismissed, and that proper parameters for determining quantum were not followed.
The Respondent contended that the Family Court was correct, as ad-interim maintenance is included within the scope of interim maintenance, and that the dismissal under the DV Act does not bar relief under Section 125 CrPC.
Reasoning of the Court
The Court clarified the distinction between interim and ad-interim maintenance, stating, “In law, interim relief is a temporary relief granted by the Court after hearing both parties, pending final adjudication of the dispute... In contrast, ad-interim relief is a provisional relief granted ex-parte or at the initial stage, often before the opposite party is served or has filed a reply. It is essentially an urgent measure granted to prevent irreparable harm, subject to further hearing and confirmation.”
Regarding the scope of Section 125 CrPC, the Court noted that the provision is designed to provide speedy and effective relief to aggrieved parties who are unable to maintain themselves, emphasizing the legislative intent to prevent destitution.
The Court examined the applicability of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021), which sets guidelines for the grant of interim maintenance, stating, “It is crystal clear from plethora of judgments including the guidelines under the most celebrated judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Rajnees Vs. Neha’ that ad-interim maintenance may be granted by the court and it is within the discretion of the court to grant it from the date of order or from the date of filing of application.”
Further, the Court further observed that ad-interim maintenance can be granted even in the absence of a specific application for such relief, based on the facts and circumstances of the case and the urgency involved.
The Court observed that the Family Court did not err in awarding ad-interim maintenance from the date of filing the application, noting, “The learned Family Court is empowered to grant ad-interim maintenance from the date of filing of the application or from the date of order, as the circumstances warrant. There is no statutory bar in this regard.”
On the petitioner’s contention that dismissal of the respondent’s application under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act) barred maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the Court clarified the independence of the two statutes, stating, “The provisions of Domestic Violence Act and provision of 125 Cr.P.C before this Court works in different spheres and no further discussion is required in support of this proposition as everyone in the field of law knows that the water is wet…Section 21(d) of the PWDV Act itself contemplates that maintenance under DV Act shall be in addition to any maintenance granted under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.”
The Court also took note of the petitioner’s failure to comply with the Family Court’s direction to pay maintenance, noting that non-payment despite court orders indicates an intent to avoid legal responsibility.
The Court held that the Family Court’s orders were legally sound and passed after due application of mind, and that the grant of ad-interim maintenance from the date of filing of the application was well within the Court’s discretion and consistent with established judicial precedents.
Accordingly, the Court disposed of the petition, upholding the impugned orders to the extent of granting ad-interim maintenance of Rs 6,000/- per month to the Respondent, modifying it to be payable from the date of the said order, and not from the date of the impugned orders.
Cause Title: X v. Y (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:5114)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Puja Jakhar, Harshit Prakash, Krishan Chauhan
Respondent: Advocate D.K. Sharma
