JODHPUR<\/em>: The Rajasthan High Court<\/strong> <\/a>has said that maintenance laws<\/strong> are meant to prevent starvation and helplessness, not to financially destroy a husband<\/strong> with massive arrears after years of delay in court proceedings. The Court observed that forcing a salaried man to suddenly pay lakhs of rupees after a decade can become an unbearable burden.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In an important judgment, the bench of Justice Farjand Ali<\/strong> modified earlier orders passed by trial courts and directed that maintenance should be paid from the date of the order in 2025, instead of from the date when the application was filed in 2014.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The case involved a husband who challenged orders passed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005<\/strong>. The wife had filed a case in 2014 alleging cruelty, harassment and dowry demands and sought protection, maintenance and compensation. The husband denied the allegations and claimed that false proceedings were initiated after he filed a divorce case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The trial court in 2025 awarded Rs.20,000 monthly maintenance, Rs.5,000 for accommodation and Rs.2 lakh compensation to the wife. Later, the appellate court reduced the maintenance amount to Rs.10,000 per month but still ordered payment from 2014, creating arrears running into several lakhs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While hearing the revision petition, the High Court strongly criticised the approach of the lower courts and reminded that maintenance law is not meant to punish husbands.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe delay in disposal of maintenance proceedings by the judicial system cannot become a tool for imposing crushing retrospective liabilities upon either party. Courts are expected to adopt a realistic, pragmatic and equitable approach while determining the commencement of maintenance.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Court further said that maintenance is meant for immediate survival and not for creating financial devastation years later.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe law never contemplated that maintenance proceedings would assume the nature of a money recovery suit or culminate into a colossal retrospective financial burden incapable of being discharged by a salaried employee. The courts are required to strike a delicate balance between the needs of the claimant and the actual paying capacity of the person directed to pay maintenance.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Court noted that the maintenance proceedings remained pending for almost 10 to 11 years and ultimately resulted in huge arrears against the husband, who entered government service only in 2018.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The bench observed that although monthly maintenance may be manageable for a salaried person, forcing payment of arrears accumulated over a decade can become impossible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe purpose of maintenance is to provide immediate support to avoid starvation and destitution. If the claimant has managed to sustain herself, survive and pursue litigation for all these years, then grant of huge retrospective arrears after lapse of a decade cannot be said to advance the object of immediate sustenance. Rather, it assumes the character of a monetary decree or financial compensation, which is beyond the true scope of maintenance jurisprudence.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Court also warned that courts cannot ignore practical realities faced by ordinary salaried men.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe courts cannot remain oblivious to the practical realities of life. An ordinary salaried employee cannot reasonably be expected to suddenly discharge arrears accumulated for 10 or 11 years at the rate of Rs.20,000\/- per month. Such directions, instead of securing justice, may push the person liable to pay into financial ruin and perpetual indebtedness.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The High Court further found fault with the Rs.2 lakh compensation granted by the trial court for alleged mental and physical harassment<\/strong>. The Court said criminal proceedings regarding cruelty allegations were already pending separately and compensation based on disputed allegations could prejudice the ongoing trial.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court clarified that proceedings under the DV Act are remedial and protective in nature and should not become substitutes for criminal trials.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Finally, the Rajasthan High Court set aside the appellate court order directing retrospective maintenance from 2014 and held that the husband would pay Rs.20,000 per month only from 27 February 2025, the date of the trial court order.<\/strong> The Rs.2 lakh compensation was also quashed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
Important Laws And Sections Explained<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
LAW \/ SECTION<\/strong><\/td> PURPOSE<\/strong><\/td> HOW IT WAS USED IN THIS CASE<\/strong><\/td><\/tr> Section 12, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act<\/a>, 2005<\/strong><\/td> Allows an aggrieved woman to seek protection orders, maintenance, residence and compensation before Magistrate Court<\/td> Wife filed application in 2014 seeking maintenance, protection and compensation<\/td><\/tr> Section 29, Domestic Violence Act<\/strong><\/td> Gives right to appeal against Magistrate\u2019s order before Sessions\/Appellate Court<\/td> Husband challenged trial court order before appellate court<\/td><\/tr> Section 438, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita<\/a> (BNSS), 2023<\/strong><\/td> Revisional jurisdiction provision before High Court<\/td> Husband filed criminal revision petition before Rajasthan High Court<\/td><\/tr> Section 442, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023<\/strong><\/td> Procedural provision relating to revisional powers and records<\/td> Invoked along with Section 438 in revision petition<\/td><\/tr> Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005<\/strong><\/td> Civil-protective legislation providing reliefs like maintenance, residence and protection<\/td> Entire dispute arose from proceedings under this Act<\/td><\/tr> Maintenance <\/a>Jurisprudence<\/strong><\/td> Legal principle ensuring financial support for dependent spouse<\/td> Court clarified that maintenance is for survival and dignity, not punishment<\/td><\/tr> Compensation Under DV Act<\/strong><\/td> Monetary compensation for alleged mental or physical harm<\/td> High Court quashed Rs.2 lakh compensation as criminal allegations were still pending trial<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n Case Details<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
PARTICULARS<\/strong><\/td> DETAILS<\/strong><\/td><\/tr> Case Title<\/strong><\/td> R S vs M D & Ors.<\/td><\/tr> Court<\/strong><\/td> High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur<\/td><\/tr> Bench<\/strong><\/td> Hon\u2019ble Mr. Justice Farjand Ali<\/td><\/tr> Neutral Citation<\/strong><\/td> 2026:RJ-JD:22423<\/td><\/tr> Case Number<\/strong><\/td> S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 599\/2025<\/td><\/tr> Date of Pronouncement<\/strong><\/td> 12\/05\/2026<\/td><\/tr> Date Arguments Concluded<\/strong><\/td> 17\/04\/2026<\/td><\/tr> Date Reserved<\/strong><\/td> 17\/04\/2026<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n Counsels Appearing<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
SIDE<\/strong><\/td> COUNSEL<\/strong><\/td><\/tr> For Petitioner<\/strong><\/td> Mr. Narendra Thanvi, Mr. Mahendra Thanvi<\/td><\/tr> For Respondents<\/strong><\/td> Mr. SriRam Choudhary, PP and Ms. Sarika Bishnoi<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n Key Takeaways<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n