No Delay or Lapse Can Block Interim Maintenance

Source: Delhi High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held that technical delays or procedural lapses cannot defeat the purpose of interim maintenance under Section 125 the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). 

• The Delhi High Court held this in the matter of X v. Y (2025). 

What was the Background of X v. Y (2025) Case? 

• Sagar Phogat married Priyanka on 26th May 2017 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies at Ramher Vatika, Prahladpur Banger, Delhi. A male child was born from their wedlock on 23rd August 2019. The respondent is presently living separately from the revisionist and has custody of the minor child. 
• On 6th October 2023, Priyanka filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance for herself and the minor child. She alleged that she had been subjected to cruelty and harassment by Sagar Phogat and his family members. She claimed that Sagar was earning rental income of more than ₹4,00,000 per month and required ₹2,00,000 per month for maintenance. 
• The Family Court directed Sagar to pay ₹50,000 per month as interim maintenance to Priyanka and the minor child from the date of filing the petition. Sagar challenged this order through a revision petition in the Delhi High Court. 
• Sagar argued that the order was passed without proper appreciation of facts and was based solely on Priyanka's pleadings without affording him fair opportunity to present his case.  
• He claimed to be unemployed and dependent on his ailing mother who suffers from stage-three brain tumor. He contended that the maintenance amount was beyond his financial capacity and that ancestral properties generated limited income shared among family members. 
• The State contended that the Family Court passed a well-reasoned order after considering material on record.  
• The maintenance amount was neither excessive nor arbitrary considering the needs of Priyanka and the minor child and their standard of living. 
• The State argued that Sagar's claims of unemployment were unsubstantiated given his admitted share in ancestral properties generating rental income. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The purpose of granting interim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to ensure that a dependent spouse is not left in destitution during pendency of proceedings. The provision is a social justice measure designed to prevent financial hardship and starvation of neglected spouse and children. 
• The Court noted that Sagar provided no cogent documentary evidence to substantiate his claim of low income despite denying Priyanka's allegations about his substantial rental earnings. His bare denial cannot be accepted at face value when he failed to file income tax returns or bank statements to corroborate his version. 
• At the interim maintenance stage, detailed trial on actual income is neither warranted nor possible, and prima facie assessment must be made based on pleadings, affidavits, and available material. The Family Court undertook balanced consideration of both parties' circumstances and awarded an amount that does not appear excessive or disproportionate. 
• The minor child is in Priyanka's care and custody, with all daily expenses including food, clothing, education, and healthcare being borne solely by her. Sagar, as the biological father, cannot abdicate his legal and moral responsibility to maintain his minor child regardless of Priyanka's qualifications or earning capacity. 
• An able-bodied person cannot shirk responsibility to maintain wife and children based on unemployment claims. Sagar admitted having share in ancestral properties generating ₹73,000 per month rental income and resides in joint family setup, indicating he is not completely devoid of means. 
• While fair opportunity and natural justice are essential, technical delays or procedural lapses cannot defeat the very purpose of interim maintenance provision. The maintenance amount of ₹50,000 per month appears proportionate to the parties' standard of living and the minor child's needs, warranting no interference under revisional jurisdiction. 

What are the Legal Framework and Judicial Interpretation under Section 144 – BNSS, 2023? 

About: 

• Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) is a social justice provision aimed at preventing destitution and financial hardship of a neglected spouse and children. It empowers a Magistrate of the First Class to grant monthly maintenance, interim maintenance, and proceeding expenses to the wife, legitimate or illegitimate child, who is unable to maintain themselves, from a person who has sufficient means but refuses or neglects to do so. 
• Key statutory features include: 
  • Section 144(1): Empowers the Magistrate to order monthly maintenance to wife and children. 
  • Second Proviso to Section 144(1): Allows the Magistrate to grant interim maintenance and expenses during the pendency of proceedings. 
  • Third Proviso to Section 144(1): Directs that interim maintenance applications should ideally be disposed of within 60 days from the date of service of notice. 
  • Section 144(2): Maintenance may be payable either from the date of application or order, as the Magistrate deems fit. 
  • Section 144(3): Non-payment of maintenance can attract warrant proceedings and imprisonment up to one month. 
  • Section 144(4): Disqualifies the wife from receiving maintenance in cases of adultery, refusal to live with husband without sufficient cause, or mutual consent to live separately. 
  • Further procedural clarity is offered under Section 145(2), which mandates that evidence must be recorded in the presence of the respondent or their advocate, with a provision for ex parte proceedings and setting aside such orders upon showing sufficient cause within three months. 

Judicial Interpretation by Delhi High Court: 

• In a significant interpretation, the Delhi High Court reiterated that Section 144 is a welfare-oriented and gender-sensitive provision.  
  • The purpose of interim maintenance is to prevent destitution and ensure subsistence of a financially dependent spouse and children during ongoing proceedings. 
  • Courts must adopt a prima facie approach to assess entitlement at the interim stage without delving into a full-fledged trial on income. 
  • Procedural or technical delays must not defeat the object of providing immediate relief. 
  • The right to fair hearing and natural justice must be balanced with the overarching aim of social justice. 
  • A husband with sufficient means, even if unemployed or claiming inability to pay, cannot shirk responsibility without credible evidence. 
  • Interim maintenance should be proportionate to the standard of living of the parties and reasonable to meet the needs of the wife and children. 
  • A Family Court’s reasoned award of interim maintenance based on balanced consideration of circumstances will not ordinarily warrant interference under revisional jurisdiction.