By making interim maintenance payable from the application date, the Allahabad High Court has effectively converted years of court delay into sudden financial liability for husbands. Once again, procedural delays punish men before guilt, income, or evidence is conclusively examined.
Uttar Pradesh: The Allahabad High Court has given an important judgment on interim maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Court made it clear that interim maintenance should normally be granted from the date when the application is filed, and not from the date when the court finally passes the order.
The case arose when the Family Court, Kaushambi granted interim maintenance to the wife but directed that it would be payable only from the date of the order. The applicant challenged this order before the High Court, stating that long delays in courts cannot be used to deny financial relief meant for survival.
The High Court observed that interim maintenance is meant to provide immediate financial support during the pendency of proceedings. If such maintenance is granted only from the date of order, the applicant would unfairly be punished for the time taken by the court system, which is beyond her control.
The Court further emphasized that Section 125 CrPC is a beneficial provision enacted to prevent destitution and penury. Its interpretation must advance social justice and protect the dignity of the person seeking maintenance. The High Court made it clear that the logic applied by the Supreme Court for final maintenance equally applies to interim maintenance.
The Allahabad High Court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Rajnesh v. Neha, which laid down that maintenance should normally be granted from the date of application so that proceedings do not become meaningless due to delay. The High Court clarified that this principle applies not only to final maintenance but also to interim maintenance.
The Court observed,
“An overall consideration of the discussions and directions given by the Supreme Court… clearly indicates that the directions in the above-mentioned case apply to proceedings for interim maintenance also.”
From a man’s perspective, this observation shows how legal uncertainty itself becomes punishment. A husband continues to face social pressure, litigation costs, and mental anxiety while the case drags on, even before any final determination of rights or liabilities.
Rejecting the argument that the Supreme Court ruling applies only to final maintenance, the High Court stated,
“Restricting the interpretation of the directions given by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court to final disposal of application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is, in my opinion, incorrect.”
The Court acknowledged a reality that men experience daily in family courts and recorded,
“Applications for interim maintenance also remain pending for years altogether.”
This delay does not pause a man’s life. He continues to pay EMIs, support parents, manage legal expenses, and live under the constant fear of arrears suddenly being imposed in bulk once an order is passed.
The Court further noted,
“Pendency of the proceedings in Court, without any order in favour of the litigant, should not be to the disadvantage of the litigant.”
Ironically, in real life, pendency almost always disadvantages the husband. With no interim clarity, arrears accumulate quietly, turning maintenance into a crushing financial shock rather than a regulated obligation.
Clarifying the legal position, the Court held,
“Once interim maintenance has to be awarded, the only reasonable conclusion… is that the said interim maintenance must also be granted from the date of the application.”
And finally concluded,
“Even grant of interim maintenance must date back to the date of the filing of the application.”
While the judgment follows settled Supreme Court law, it also underlines a deeper systemic issue—maintenance litigation is slow, evidence is tested late, and men remain financially exposed throughout the process. The ruling reinforces that unless courts decide interim applications quickly and fairly, procedural delays will continue to act as silent punishment for husbands, regardless of the final outcome of the case.
This decision once again shows why speed, accountability, and evidence-based assessment are crucial to ensure that maintenance law does not become a tool of prolonged financial pressure on men under the cover of delay.
Explanatory Table – Laws & Sections Involved
| Law / Section | Explanation | How Applied in this Case |
| Section 125 CrPC | Maintenance to wife, children and parents | Treated as a welfare provision meant to prevent destitution |
| Section 125(2) CrPC | Date from which maintenance is payable | Interpreted to allow maintenance from the date of application, not merely from order date |
| Proviso to Section 125 CrPC (Interim Maintenance) | Power to grant interim maintenance during pendency | Held that interim maintenance follows the same principle as final maintenance |
| Application u/s 528 BNSS | Revisional jurisdiction under new criminal procedure law | Used to challenge the Family Court’s order on start date of maintenance |
| Supreme Court Judgment: Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) | Guidelines on maintenance | Applied to interim maintenance; maintenance should ordinarily run from filing date |
Case Summary
- Case Title: Sonam Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Another, Application u/s 528 BNSS No. 23035 of 2025
- Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- Bench: Hon’ble Justice Rajiv Lochan Shukla
- Date of Judgment: 17 December 2025
Counsels
- For Applicant: Shri Rajeev Sawhney, Advocate
- For Respondent: Shri Shashank Kumar, Advocate
- For State: Shri Surendra Singh, Learned AGA
Key Takeaways
- Interim maintenance will now run from the application date, and men face backdated financial liability even while cases remain undecided for years.
- Court delays are no defence for the paying spouse; pendency itself can silently multiply a man’s financial burden.
- The Supreme Court ruling in Rajnesh v. Neha has been extended to interim maintenance, leaving little room for discretion at the trial court level.
- Section 125 CrPC continues to operate as a welfare law without any parallel safeguard against prolonged litigation impacting the payer.
- The judgment highlights how delayed justice in maintenance cases often converts procedural delay into permanent financial pressure on men.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.