Orissa High Court
Rukmani Sutar vs Suryakanta Sutar … … Opp. Party on 24 March, 2026
Author: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
Bench: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
W.P. (C) No.30999 of 2023
An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India.
---------------
Rukmani Sutar ... ... Petitioner
-Versus-
Suryakanta Sutar ... ... Opp. Party
Advocates appeared in the case:
For Petitioner : Mr. B. Swain, Advocate
For Opp. Party : Ms. Soma Patnaik, Advocate
------------------
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
JUDGMENT
——————————————————————————
Decided on 24th March, 2026
——————————————————————————
PER MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO, J.
1. The matter has been listed for hearing under the
heading ‘For Admission.
The learned counsel for the parties are heard at
length.
Page 1 of 13
2. The petitioner-wife is before this Court partly
challenging the order dated 06.07.2023 passed by the
learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar in I.A. No.06
of 2021 arising out of C.P. No.55 of 2021. The said CP
was filed by the petitioner-wife seeking decree of divorce
under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
During pendency of the petition, the I.A. was filed
seeking maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 which was favoured and order was
passed, which is challenged herein.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that in all fairness, the learned Family Court
should have granted the maintenance with effect from
filing of the petition under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage
Act and not from the date of passing of the order as has
been done in this case.
It is further submitted that the petitioner also
wants enhancement of the maintenance.
4. As was noted by order 12.01.2026, C.P. No.55 of
2021 was dismissed for non-prosecution by order dated
19.08.2025. Therefore, it was contended by the learned
counsel for the opposite party that I.A. does not survive
before the learned Judge, Family Court. Accordingly, the
present writ application being a challenge to the order
passed in the I.A. would also not survive.
W.P. (C) No.30999 of 2023 Page 2 of 13
5. Thereafter, the petitioner-wife in the marriage before
the learned Family Court filed CMA No.98 of 2025 arising
out of the C.P. No.55 of 2021 under Order 9 Rule 13 of
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for restoration of the C.P.
The CMA was contested by the husband in the marriage.
However, by order dated 21.03.2026, the CMA has been
favoured with the following direction:
“For the interest of justice and for proper
adjudication of the matter in controversy, the
petition filed for restoration of Civil Proceeding
No.55 of 2021 to its stage by setting aside order
dated 19.08.2025 deserves merit and as such, the
same is allowed. Accordingly, order dated
19.08.2025 is set aside and the Civil Proceeding
No.55 of 2021 is restored to file, but in the
circumstances without any cost.”
6. True copy of the order dated 21.03.2026 in CMA
No.98 of 2023 received by the petitioner herein from the
Family Court, Bhubaneswar was produced by the
learned counsel for the petitioner. Photocopy of the said
true copy is also filed before this Court along with memo
of date. True copy received from the Family Court is
returned to the learned counsel retaining the memo
along with the photocopy.
7. Now in view of the restoration of the proceeding C.P.
No.55 of 2021, in considered view of this Court all the
orders passed in the said C.P. by the learned Family
Court also are restored.
W.P. (C) No.30999 of 2023 Page 3 of 13
The present writ application has to be proceeded
with as it arises out of the said C.P.
The question of law raised in the writ application is
on grant of maintenance pendente lite under Section 24
of Hindu Marriage Act during pendency of an application
under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act what would be
the date with effect from which the maintenance is to be
paid by the spouse who is to pay.
8. The said question has been authoritatively dealt
with and answered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
judgment, Rajnesh v. Neha and another1. The relevant
paragraphs dealing with the said question wherein the
Apex Court have quoted with approval several judgments
rendered by various High Court including the Orissa
High Court, are reproduced herein:
"xxx xxx xxx xxx
IV. Date from which Maintenance to be
Awarded
94. There is no provision in the HMA with respect
to the date from which an order of maintenance
may be made effective. Similarly, Section 12 of the
DV Act, does not provide the date from which the
maintenance is to be awarded. Section 125(2) CrPC
is the only statutory provision which provides that
the Magistrate may award maintenance either from
the date of the order, or from the date of
application. [K. Sivaram v. K. Mangalamba, 1989
SCC OnLine AP 60 : (1989) 1 AP LJ 604]
1
(2021)2 SCC 324: 2020 INSC 631
W.P. (C) No.30999 of 2023 Page 4 of 13
95. In the absence of a uniform regime, there is a
vast variance in the practice adopted by the Family
Courts in the country, with respect to the date from
which maintenance must be awarded. The
divergent views taken by the Family Courts are
: first, from the date on which the application for
maintenance was filed; second, the date of the
order granting maintenance; third, the date on
which the summons was served upon the
respondent.
(a) From date of application
96. The view that maintenance ought to be granted
from the date when the application was made, is
based on the rationale that the primary object of
maintenance laws is to protect a deserted wife and
dependent children from destitution and vagrancy.
If maintenance is not paid from the date of
application, the party seeking maintenance would
be deprived of sustenance, owing to the time taken
for disposal of the application, which often runs
into several years.
97. The Orissa High Court in Susmita
Mohanty v. Rabindra Nath Sahu [Susmita
Mohanty v. Rabindra Nath Sahu, (1996) 1 OLR
361] held that the legislature intended to provide a
summary, quick and comparatively inexpensive
remedy to the neglected person. Where a litigation
is prolonged, either on account of the conduct of the
opposite party, or due to the heavy docket in
courts, or for unavoidable reasons, it would be
unjust and contrary to the object of the provision, to
provide maintenance from the date of the order.
98. In Kanhu Charan Jena v. Nirmala Jena [Kanhu
Charan Jena v. Nirmala Jena, 2000 SCC OnLine
Ori 217 : 2001 Cri LJ 879] , the Orissa High Court
was considering an application under Section 125
[Underlined to supply emphasis]
W.P. (C) No.30999 of 2023 Page 5 of 13
CrPC, wherein it was held that even though the
decision to award maintenance either from the date
of application, or from the date of order, was within
the discretion of the court, it would be appropriate to
grant maintenance from the date of application. This
was followed in Arun Kumar Nayak v. Urmila
Jena [Arun Kumar Nayak v. Urmila Jena, 2010 SCC
OnLine Ori 30 : (2010) 93 AIC 726] , wherein it was
reiterated that dependants were entitled to receive
maintenance from the date of application.
99. The Madhya Pradesh High Court
in Krishna v. Dharam Raj [Krishna v. Dharam Raj,
1991 SCC OnLine MP 6 : (1993) 2 MPJR 63] held
that a wife may set up a claim for maintenance to
be granted from the date of application, and the
husband may deny it. In such cases, the court may
frame an issue, and decide the same based on
evidence led by parties. The view that the “normal
rule” was to grant maintenance from the date of
order, and the exception was to grant maintenance
from the date of application, would be to insert
something more in Section 125(2) CrPC, which the
legislature did not intend. Reasons must be
recorded in both cases. i.e. when maintenance is
awarded from the date of application, or when it is
awarded from the date of order.
100. The law governing payment of maintenance
under Section 125 CrPC from the date of
application, was extended to HAMA by the
Allahabad High Court in Ganga Prasad
Srivastava v. Addl. District Judge, Gonda [Ganga
Prasad Srivastava v. Addl. District Judge, Gonda,
2019 SCC OnLine All 5428 : (2019) 6 ADJ 850] .
The Court held that the date of application should
always be regarded as the starting point for
payment of maintenance. The Court was
considering a suit for maintenance under Section
[Underlined to supply emphasis]
W.P. (C) No.30999 of 2023 Page 6 of 13
18 of the HAMA, wherein the Civil Judge directed
that maintenance be paid from the date of judgment.
The High Court held that the normal inference should
be that the order of maintenance would be effective
from the date of application. A party seeking
maintenance would otherwise be deprived of
maintenance due to the delay in disposal of the
application, which may arise due to paucity of time of
the court, or on account of the conduct of one of the
parties. In this case, there was a delay of seven
years in disposing of the suit, and the wife could not
be made to starve till such time. The wife was held to
be entitled to maintenance from the date of
application/suit.
101. The Delhi High Court in Lavlesh
Shukla v. Rukmani [Lavlesh Shukla v. Rukmani,
2019 SCC OnLine Del 11709] held that where the
wife is unemployed and is incurring expenses
towards maintaining herself and the minor
child/children, she is entitled to receive
maintenance from the date of application.
Maintenance is awarded to a wife to overcome the
financial crunch, which occurs on account of her
separation from her husband. It is neither a matter
of favour to the wife, nor any charity done by the
husband.
(b) From the date of order
102. The second view that maintenance ought to
be awarded from the date of order is based on the
premise that the general rule is to award
maintenance from the date of order, and grant of
maintenance from the date of application must be
the exception. The foundation of this view is based
on the interpretation of Section 125(2) CrPC which
provides:
“125. (2) Any such allowance for the
maintenance or interim maintenance and
expenses for proceeding shall be payable[Underlined to supply emphasis]
W.P. (C) No.30999 of 2023 Page 7 of 13
from the date of the order, or, if so ordered,
from the date of the application for
maintenance or interim maintenance and
expenses of proceeding, as the case may be.”
(emphasis supplied)
The words “or, if so ordered” in Section 125 have
been interpreted to mean that where the court is
awarding maintenance from the date of
application, special reasons ought to be recorded.
[Bina Devi v. State of U.P., 2010 SCC OnLine All
236 : (2010) 69 ACC 19]
103. In Bina Devi v. State of U.P. [Bina
Devi v. State of U.P., 2010 SCC OnLine All 236 :
(2010) 69 ACC 19] the Allahabad High Court on an
interpretation of Section 125(2) CrPC held that
when maintenance is directed to be paid from the
date of application, the court must record reasons.
If the order is silent, it will be effective from the
date of the order, for which reasons need not be
recorded. The Court held that Section 125(2) CrPC
is prima facie clear that maintenance shall be
payable from the date of the order.
104. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Amit
Verma v. Sangeeta Verma [Amit Verma v. Sangeeta
Verma, 2020 SCC OnLine MP 2657] directed that
maintenance ought to be granted from the date of
the order.
(c) From the date of service of summons
105. The third view followed by some courts is that
maintenance ought to be granted from the date of
service of summons upon the respondent.
106. The Kerala High Court in S.
Radhakumari v. K.M.K. Nair [S.
Radhakumari v. K.M.K. Nair, 1982 SCC OnLine Ker
51 : AIR 1983 Ker 139] was considering an
application for interim maintenance preferred by
the wife in divorce proceedings filed by the
husband. The High Court held that maintenance
W.P. (C) No.30999 of 2023 Page 8 of 13
must be awarded to the wife from the date on
which summons were served in the main divorce
petition. The Court relied upon the judgment of the
Calcutta High Court in Samir Kr. Banerjee v. Sujata
Banerjee [Samir Kr. Banerjee v. Sujata Banerjee,
1965 SCC OnLine Cal 196 : (1965-66) 70 CWN 633]
and held that Section 24 of the HMA does not
contain any provision that maintenance must be
awarded from a specific date. The court may, in
exercise of its discretion, award maintenance from
the date of service of summons.
107. The Orissa High Court in Gouri
Das v. Pradyumna Kumar Das [Gouri
Das v. Pradyumna Kumar Das, (1986) 2 OLR 44]
was considering an application for interim
maintenance filed under Section 24 HMA by the
wife, in a divorce petition instituted by the
husband. The Court held that the ordinary rule is to
award maintenance from the date of service of
summons. It was held that in cases where the
applicant in the maintenance petition is also the
petitioner in the divorce petition, maintenance
becomes payable from the date when summons is
served upon the respondent in the main
proceeding.
108. In Kalpana Das v. Sarat Kumar Das [Kalpana
Das v. Sarat Kumar Das, 2009 SCC OnLine Ori 21 :
AIR 2009 Ori 133] the Orissa High Court held that
the wife was entitled to maintenance from the date
when the husband entered appearance. The Court
was considering an application for interim
maintenance under Section 24 HMA in a petition for
restitution of conjugal rights filed by the wife. The
Family Court awarded interim maintenance to the
wife and minor child from the date of the order. In
an appeal filed by the wife and minor child seeking
maintenance from the date of application, the High
Court held that the Family Court had failed to
assign any reasons in support of its order, and
directed : (SCC OnLine Ori para 8)W.P. (C) No.30999 of 2023 Page 9 of 13
“8. … The learned Judge, Family Court has
not assigned any reason as to why he
passed the order of interim maintenance
w.e.f. the date of order. When admittedly the
parties are living separately and prima facie
it appears that the petitioners have no
independent source of income, therefore, in
our view order should have been passed for
payment of interim maintenance from the
date of appearance of the opposite party-
husband.”
(emphasis supplied)
Discussion and Directions
109. The judgments hereinabove reveal the
divergent views of different High Courts on the date
from which maintenance must be awarded. Even
though a judicial discretion is conferred upon the
court to grant maintenance either from the date of
application or from the date of the order in Section
125(2) CrPC, it would be appropriate to grant
maintenance from the date of application in all
cases, including Section 125 CrPC. In the practical
working of the provisions relating to maintenance,
we find that there is significant delay in disposal of
the applications for interim maintenance for years
on end. It would therefore be in the interests of
justice and fair play that maintenance is awarded
from the date of the application.
110. In Shail Kumari Devi v. Krishan Bhagwan
Pathak [Shail Kumari Devi v. Krishan Bhagwan
Pathak, (2008) 9 SCC 632 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 839],
this Court held that the entitlement of maintenance
should not be left to the uncertain date of disposal
of the case. The enormous delay in disposal of
proceedings justifies the award of maintenance
from the date of application. In Bhuwan Mohan
Singh v. Meena [Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena,
[Underlined to supply emphasis]
W.P. (C) No.30999 of 2023 Page 10 of 13
(2015) 6 SCC 353 : (2015) 3 SCC
(Civ) 321 : (2015) 4 SCC (Cri) 200] , this Court held
that repetitive adjournments sought by the
husband in that case resulted in delay of 9 years
in the adjudication of the case. The delay in
adjudication was not only against human rights,
but also against the basic embodiment of dignity of
an individual. The delay in the conduct of the
proceedings would require grant of maintenance to
date back to the date of application.
111. The rationale of granting maintenance from
the date of application finds its roots in the object of
enacting maintenance legislations, so as to enable
the wife to overcome the financial crunch which
occurs on separation from the husband. Financial
constraints of a dependent spouse hamper their
capacity to be effectively represented before the
court. In order to prevent a dependant from being
reduced to destitution, it is necessary that
maintenance is awarded from the date on which
the application for maintenance is filed before the
court concerned.
112. In Badshah v. Urmila Badshah
Godse [Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse,
(2014) 1 SCC 188 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 51] , the
Supreme Court was considering the interpretation
of Section 125 CrPC. The Court held : (SCC p. 196,
para 13)
“13.3. … purposive interpretation needs to
be given to the provisions of Section 125
CrPC. While dealing with the application of
a destitute wife or hapless children or
parents under this provision, the Court is
dealing with the marginalised sections of
the society. The purpose is to achieve
“social justice” which is the constitutional
[Underlined to supply emphasis]
W.P. (C) No.30999 of 2023 Page 11 of 13
vision, enshrined in the Preamble of the
Constitution of India. The Preamble to the
Constitution of India clearly signals that we
have chosen the democratic path under the
rule of law to achieve the goal of securing
for all its citizens, justice, liberty, equality
and fraternity. It specifically highlights
achieving their social justice. Therefore, it
becomes the bounden duty of the courts to
advance the cause of social justice. While
giving interpretation to a particular
provision, the court is supposed to bridge
the gap between the law and society.”
(emphasis supplied)
113. It has therefore become necessary to issue
directions to bring about uniformity and
consistency in the orders passed by all courts, by
directing that maintenance be awarded from the
date on which the application was made before the
court concerned. The right to claim maintenance
must date back to the date of filing the application,
since the period during which the maintenance
proceedings remained pending is not within the
control of the applicant.
xxx xxx xxx xxx
VI. Final Directions
127. In view of the foregoing discussions as
contained in Part B-I to V of this judgment, we
deem it appropriate to pass the following directions
in exercise of our powers under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India.
xxx xxx xxx xxx
(d) Date from which maintenance is to be
awarded
131. We make it clear that maintenance in all
cases will be awarded from the date of filing the
application for maintenance, as held in Part B-IV
above.”
[Underlined to supply emphasis]
W.P. (C) No.30999 of 2023 Page 12 of 13
9. Learned counsel for the opposite party, Ms. Patnaik
takes a fair stand as far as applicability of the judgment
of the Hon’ble Apex Court is concerned.
10. In view of the above discussions, applying the
principles laid by Hon’ble the Supreme Court to facts of
the present case, the order dated 06.07.2023 passed by
the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar in IA
No.06 of 2021, arising out of C.P. No.55 of 2021 is
modified only to the extent that the interim maintenance
shall be payable to the petitioner by the opposite party,
from the date of filing of the application under Section 24
of Hindu Marriage Act which has been stated to be
13.01.2021 and also not disputed. With the aforesaid
modifications, the order dated 06.07.2023 is also
affirmed.
11. The writ application is allowed to the aforesaid
extent and the disposed of.
(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 24th March, 2026/Jyostna
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: JYOSTNARANI MAJHEE
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC
Date: 31-Mar-2026 13:10:18
W.P. (C) No.30999 of 2023 Page 13 of 13
[ad_1]
Source link
