Orissa High Court
K. Rajesh vs B. Manorama …. Opp. Party on 23 March, 2026
Author: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
Bench: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RPFAM No.118 of 2025
K. Rajesh .... Petitioner
Mr. P.V. Balakrishna, Advocate along with
Mr. T.K. Mishra, Advocate
-versus-
B. Manorama .... Opp. Party
CORAM:
JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
ORDER
23.03.2026
(Hybrid Mode)
Order No.
01. 1. The learned counsel, Mr. Balakrishna and Mr.
Mishra were heard at length on behalf of the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is the husband in the marriage. He
has approached this Court seeking revision of the
judgment dated 27.01.2025 passed by the learned
Judge, Family Court, Berhampur at Ganjam in
Criminal Proceeding No.368 of 2017.
The said proceeding was initiated by the wife in
the marriage seeking monthly maintenance
@ Rs.15,000/- under Section 125(1) of Cr.P.C. (since
repealed and substituted by pari materia provision
contained in Section 144 BNSS, 2023). One time
litigation expenses was sought @ Rs.5,000/-. The
petition has been favoured by the judgment of which
Page 1 of 21
revision is sought for under Section 19 of the Family
Courts Act,1984, however, granting monthly
maintenance @ Rs.10,000/- with effect from the date
of filing of the application i.e. from 22.12.2017 and
Rs.3,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. The brief facts of the case before the learned
Judge Family Court as presented by the opposite
party-wife is that the marriage between the petitioner-
husband and the opposite party-wife was solemnized
on 25.07.2005 at Tirupati Kalyan Mandapam, Tirupati,
Andhra Pradesh. Now the petitioner-husband who was
the opposite party before the learned Judge, Family
Court works as Assistant Manager, State Bank of
India, Settipali Branch, Andhra Pradesh draws
monthly salary of Rs.60,000/-. Having stable source of
income, the husband in the marriage has not
maintained the wife from the date of separate living.
4. The opposite party-husband-petitioner in the
present application appeared upon notice being
sufficient. He filed his written statement which
indicated that the marriage between the parties has
been dissolved by a decree of divorce granted by the
learned Judge, Family Court, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh
vide judgment dated 21.12.2010 in FCOP No.62 of
2010. It was stated in the W.S. that at the time of
marriage the wife was pursuing M.C.A. The husband
expected that she would work, earn and render
financial support to him in future. Some dissensions
Page 2 of 21
arose in the year 2005. The husband initiated
proceedings under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage
Act,1955 vide FCOP No.149 of 2008 at Andhra Pradesh
which was decreed in his favour by judgment dated
14.07.2008 by the learned Judge, Family Court,
Nellore. Thereafter before the said learned Family
Judge, Nellore, FCOP No.62 of 2010 was initiated by
the husband, that ended up in the judgment granting
decree of divorce on the ground of desertion. It was
further disclosed that C.P. No.146 of 2006 was
initiated before the learned Judge, Family Court by the
wife in the marriage seeking divorce. Regarding
earnings of the wife it was stated by the opposite party-
husband before the learned Judge, Family Court that
she works in a private company and earns more than
Rs.6,00,000/- per annum.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
have raised the following grounds:
(i) The wife and the husband having been granted
decree of divorce, the wife is not entitled for any
maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.,
(ii) The wife being capable of earning and as she
is earning is also not entitled to the amount of
maintenance that has been directed, and
(iii) Long separation of the wife would disentitle
her to get maintenance,
(iv) The wife is not entitled for maintenance as
she has deserted her husband.
Page 3 of 21
6. The judgment and decree passed by the learned
Judge, Family Court, Nellore under Sections 9 and 13
of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 were marked as exhibits,
the certified copies having been produced before the
learned Judge, Family Court, Berhampur. The
petitioner-wife contended before the learned Judge,
Family Court that the decree of divorce was obtained
ex parte, no permanent alimony was awarded. She
pleaded the right of divorcee wife filed to get
maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. from the
divorced husband.
7. The learned court has granted the maintenance
under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. by giving a finding, which
is of course not disputed, that claim for maintenance is
that of a divorced wife.
No oral or documentary evidences were adduced
by the opposite party-husband before the learned
family court to prove the income of the wife to be
Rs.6,00,000/- per annum. The income of the husband
was taken note of from his salary slip marked as
evidence and also the fact that he is working as
Assistant Manager in State Bank of India.
8. The contentions raised in the present application
seeking revision regarding scope and applicability of
Section 125 of Cr.P.C. have been authoritatively
discussed and decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the decision of Rajnesh v. Neha and another: 2020
Page 4 of 21
INSC 631: (2021) 2 SCC 324. The relevant
paragraphs are reproduced herein (from SCC Print):
“(d) Section 125 CrPC
32. Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 provides for maintenance of
wife, children and parents in a summary
proceeding. Maintenance under Section 125
CrPC may be claimed by a person irrespective of
the religious community to which they belong.
The purpose and object of Section 125 CrPC is to
provide immediate relief to an applicant. An
application under Section 125 CrPC is
predicated on two conditions : (i) the husband
has sufficient means; and (ii) “neglects” to
maintain his wife, who is unable to maintain
herself. In such a case, the husband may be
directed by the Magistrate to pay such monthly
sum to the wife, as deemed fit. Maintenance is
awarded on the basis of the financial capacity
of the husband and other relevant factors.
33. The remedy provided by Section 125 is
summary in nature, and the substantive
disputes with respect to dissolution of marriage
can be determined by a civil court/Family Court
in an appropriate proceeding, such as the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955.
34. In Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamla Devi [Bhagwan
Dutt v. Kamla Devi, (1975) 2 SCC 386 : 1975
SCC (Cri) 563] the Supreme Court held that
under Section 125(1) CrPC only a wife who is
“unable to maintain herself” is entitled to seek
maintenance. The Court held : (SCC p. 392, para
19)
“19. The object of these provisions
being to prevent vagrancy and
destitution, the Magistrate has to find out
as to what is required by the wife to
maintain a standard of living which is
neither luxurious nor penurious, but is
modestly consistent with the status of the
family. The needs and requirements of
Page 5 of 21
the wife for such moderate living can be
fairly determined, only if her separate
income, also, is taken into account
together with the earnings of the husband
and his commitments.”
(emphasis supplied)
35. Prior to the amendment of Section 125 in
2001, there was a ceiling on the amount which
could be awarded as maintenance, being Rs
500 “in the whole”. In view of the rising costs of
living and inflation rates, the ceiling of Rs 500
was done away with by the 2001 Amendment
Act. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of
the Amendment Act states that the wife had to
wait for several years before being granted
maintenance. Consequently, the Amendment Act
introduced an express provision for grant of
“interim maintenance”. The Magistrate was
vested with the power to order the respondent to
make a monthly allowance towards interim
maintenance during the pendency of the
petition. Under sub-section (2) of Section 125,
the court is conferred with the discretion to
award payment of maintenance either from the
date of the order, or from the date of the
application. Under the third proviso to the
amended Section 125, the application for grant
of interim maintenance must be disposed of as
far as possible within sixty days from the date
of service of notice on the respondent.
36. The amended Section 125 reads as under:
“125. Order for maintenance of wives,
children and parents.–(1) If any person
having sufficient means neglects or refuses to
maintain–
(a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or
(b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child,
whether married or not, unable to maintain
itself, or
(c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not
being a married daughter) who has attainedPage 6 of 21
majority, where such child is, by reason of any
physical or mental abnormality or injury unable
to maintain itself, or
(d) his father or mother, unable to maintain
himself or herself, a Magistrate of the First
Class may, upon proof of such neglect or
refusal, order such person to make a monthly
allowance for the maintenance of his wife or
such child, father or mother, at such monthly
rate as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay
the same to such person as the Magistrate may
from time to time direct:
Provided that the Magistrate may order the
father of a minor female child referred to in
clause (b) to make such allowance, until she
attains her majority, if the Magistrate is
satisfied that the husband of such minor female
child, if married, is not possessed of sufficient
means:
Provided further that the Magistrate may,
during the pendency of the proceeding regarding
monthly allowance for the maintenance under
this sub-section, order such person to make a
monthly allowance for the interim maintenance
of his wife or such child, father or mother, and
the expenses of such proceeding which the
Magistrate considers reasonable, and to pay the
same to such person as the Magistrate may
from time to time direct:
Provided also that an application for the
monthly allowance for the interim maintenance
and expenses of proceeding under the second
proviso shall, as far as possible, be disposed of
within sixty days from the date of the service of
notice of the application to such person.
Explanation.–For the purposes of this
Chapter–
(a) “minor” means a person who, under the
provisions of the Indian Majority Act, 1875 (9 of
1875); is deemed not to have attained his
majority;
Page 7 of 21
(b) “wife” includes a woman who has been
divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her
husband and has not remarried.
(2) Any such allowance for the maintenance or
interim maintenance and expenses of
proceeding shall be payable 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.
(3) If any person so ordered fails without
sufficient cause to comply with the order, any
such Magistrate may, for every breach of the
order, issue a warrant for levying the amount
due in the manner provided for levying fines,
and may sentence such person, for the whole or
any part of each month’s allowance for the
maintenance or the interim maintenance and
expenses of proceeding, as the case may be,
remaining unpaid after the execution of the
warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may
extend to one month or until payment if sooner
made:
Provided that no warrant shall be issued for
the recovery of any amount due under this
section unless application be made to the Court
to levy such amount within a period of one year
from the date on which it became due : Provided
further that if such person offers to maintain his
wife on condition of her living with him, and she
refuses to live with him, such Magistrate may
consider any grounds of refusal stated by her,
and may make an order under this section
notwithstanding such offer, if he is satisfied
that there is just ground for so doing.
Explanation.–If a husband has contracted
marriage with another woman or keeps a
mistress, it shall be considered to be a just
ground for his wife’s refusal to live with him.
(4) No wife shall be entitled to receive an
allowance for the maintenance or interim
maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as
Page 8 of 21
the case may be, from her husband under this
section if she is living in adultery, or if, without
any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with
her husband, or if they are living separately by
mutual consent.
(5) On proof that any wife in whose favour an
order has been made under this section is living
in adultery, or that without sufficient reason she
refuses to live with her husband, or that they
are living separately by mutual consent, the
Magistrate shall cancel the order.”
(emphasis supplied)
37. In Chaturbhuj v.Sita Bai [Chaturbhuj v. Sita
Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316: (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 547 :
(2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 356] this Court held that the
object of maintenance proceedings is not to
punish a person for his past neglect, but to
prevent vagrancy and destitution of a deserted
wife by providing her food, clothing and shelter
by a speedy remedy. Section 125 CrPC is a
measure of social justice especially enacted to
protect women and children, and falls within
the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3),
reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution.
38. Proceedings under Section 125 Cr PC are
summary in nature. In Bhuwan Mohan
Singh v. Meena[Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena,
(2015) 6 SCC 353 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 321 :
(2015) 4 SCC (Cri) 200] this Court held that
Section 125 CrPC was conceived to ameliorate
the agony, anguish, financial suffering of a
woman who had left her matrimonial home, so
that some suitable arrangements could be made
to enable her to sustain herself and the children.
Since it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to
provide financial support to the wife and minor
children, the husband was required to earn
money even by physical labour, if he is able-
bodied, and could not avoid his obligation,
except on any legally permissible ground
mentioned in the statute.
Page 9 of 21
39. The issue whether presumption of marriage
arises when parties are in a live-in relationship
for a long period of time, which would give rise
to a claim under Section 125 Cr PC came up for
consideration in Chanmuniya v. Virendra
Kumar Singh Kushwaha [Chanmuniya v.
Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha, (2011) 1 SCC
141 : (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 53 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri)
666. This judgment was referred to a larger
Bench.] before the Supreme Court. It was held
that where a man and a woman have cohabited
for a long period of time, in the absence of legal
necessities of a valid marriage, such a woman
would be entitled to maintenance. A man should
not be allowed to benefit from legal loopholes,
by enjoying the advantages of a de facto
marriage, without undertaking the duties and
obligations of such marriage. A broad and
expansive interpretation must be given to the
term “wife”, to include even those cases where a
man and woman have been living together as
husband and wife for a reasonably long period
of time. Strict proof of marriage should not be a
precondition for grant of maintenance under
Section 125 CrPC. The Court relied on the
Malimath Committee Report on Reforms of
Criminal Justice System published in 2003,
which recommended that evidence regarding a
man and woman living together for a
reasonably long period, should be sufficient to
draw the presumption of marriage.
40. The law presumes in favour of marriage,
and against concubinage, when a man and
woman cohabit continuously for a number of
years. Unlike matrimonial proceedings where
strict proof of marriage is essential, in
proceedings under Section 125 CrPC such strict
standard of proof is not necessary.
xxx xxx xxx xxx
III. Criteria for determining quantum of
maintenance
Page 10 of 21
77. The objective of granting interim/permanent
alimony is to ensure that the dependent spouse
is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on
account of the failure of the marriage, and not
as a punishment to the other spouse. There is
no straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum of
maintenance to be awarded.
78. The factors which would weigh with the
court inter alia are the status of the parties;
reasonable needs of the wife and dependent
children; whether the applicant is educated and
professionally qualified; whether the applicant
has any independent source of income; whether
the income is sufficient to enable her to maintain
the same standard of living as she was
accustomed to in her matrimonial home;
whether the applicant was employed prior to
her marriage; whether she was working during
the subsistence of the marriage; whether the
wife was required to sacrifice her employment
opportunities for nurturing the family, child
rearing, and looking after adult members of the
family; reasonable costs of litigation for a non-
working wife.
79. In Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain [Manish
Jain v. Akanksha Jain, (2017) 15 SCC 801 :
(2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 712] this Court held that the
financial position of the parents of the applicant
wife, would not be material while determining
the quantum of maintenance. An order of interim
maintenance is conditional on the circumstance
that the wife or husband who makes a claim
has no independent income, sufficient for her or
his support. It is no answer to a claim of
maintenance that the wife is educated and
could support herself. The court must take into
consideration the status of the parties and the
capacity of the spouse to pay for her or his
support. Maintenance is dependent upon factual
situations; the court should mould the claim for
maintenance based on various factors brought
before it.
Page 11 of 21
80. On the other hand, the financial capacity of
the husband, his actual income, reasonable
expenses for his own maintenance, and
dependent family members whom he is obliged
to maintain under the law, liabilities if any,
would be required to be taken into
consideration, to arrive at the appropriate
quantum of maintenance to be paid. The court
must have due regard to the standard of living
of the husband, as well as the spiralling
inflation rates and high costs of living. The plea
of the husband that he does not possess any
source of income ipso facto does not absolve him
of his moral duty to maintain his wife if he is
able-bodied and has educational qualifications.
81. A careful and just balance must be drawn
between all relevant factors. The test for
determination of maintenance in matrimonial
disputes depends on the financial status of the
respondent, and the standard of living that the
applicant was accustomed to in her matrimonial
home. [Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316
: (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 547 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri)
356] The maintenance amount awarded must
be reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of
the two extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to
the wife should neither be so extravagant which
becomes oppressive and unbearable for the
respondent, nor should it be so meagre that it
drives the wife to penury. The sufficiency of the
quantum has to be adjudged so that the wife is
able to maintain herself with reasonable
comfort.
82. Section 23 of the HAMA provides statutory
guidance with respect to the criteria for
determining the quantum of maintenance. Sub-
section (2) of Section 23 of the HAMA provides
the following factors which may be taken into
consideration : (i) position and status of the
parties, (ii) reasonable wants of the claimant, (iii)
if the petitioner/claimant is living separately, the
justification for the same, (iv) value of the
Page 12 of 21
claimant’s property and any income derived from
such property, (v) income from claimant’s own
earning or from any other source.
83. Section 20(2) of the DV Act provides that the
monetary relief granted to the aggrieved woman
and/or the children must be adequate, fair,
reasonable, and consistent with the standard of
living to which the aggrieved woman was
accustomed to in her matrimonial home.
84. The Delhi High Court in Bharat
Hegde v. Saroj Hegde [Bharat Hegde v. Saroj
Hegde, 2007 SCC OnLine Del 622 : (2007) 140
DLT 16] laid down the following factors to be
considered for determining maintenance : (SCC
OnLine Del para 8)
“1. Status of the parties.
2. Reasonable wants of the claimant.
3. The independent income and property of the
claimant.
4. The number of persons, the non-applicant
has to maintain.
5. The amount should aid the applicant to live
in a similar lifestyle as he/she enjoyed in the
matrimonial home.
6. Non-applicant’s liabilities, if any.
7. Provisions for food, clothing, shelter,
education, medical attendance and treatment,
etc. of the applicant.
8. Payment capacity of the non-applicant.
9. Some guesswork is not ruled out while
estimating the income of the non-applicant when
all the sources or correct sources are not
disclosed.
10. The non-applicant to defray the cost of
litigation.
11. The amount awarded under Section 125
CrPC is adjustable against the amount awarded
under Section 24 of the Act.”
85. Apart from the aforesaid factors enumerated
hereinabove, certain additional factors would
Page 13 of 21
also be relevant for determining the quantum of
maintenance payable.”
xxx xxx xxx xxx
(c) Where wife is earning some income
90. The courts have held that if the wife is
earning, it cannot operate as a bar from being
awarded maintenance by the husband. The
courts have provided guidance on this issue in
the following judgments:
90.1. In Shailja v. Khobbanna [Shailja v. Khobba
nna, (2018) 12 SCC 199 : (2018) 5 SCC (Civ) 308;
See also the decision of the Karnataka High
Court in P. Suresh v. S. Deepa, 2016 SCC OnLine
Kar 8848 : 2016 Cri LJ 4794 (Kar)] , this Court
held that merely because the wife is capable of
earning, it would not be a sufficient ground to
reduce the maintenance awarded by the Family
Court. The court has to determine whether the
income of the wife is sufficient to enable her to
maintain herself, in accordance with the lifestyle
of her husband in the matrimonial home.
[Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316 :
(2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 547 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 356]
Sustenance does not mean, and cannot be
allowed to mean mere survival.
90.2. In Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil
Kachwaha [Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha,
(2014) 16 SCC 715 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 753 :
(2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 589] the wife had a
postgraduate degree, and was employed as a
teacher in Jabalpur. The husband raised a
contention that since the wife had sufficient
income, she would not require financial
assistance from the husband. The Supreme Court
repelled this contention, and held that merely
because the wife was earning some income, it
could not be a ground to reject her claim for
maintenance.
90.3. The Bombay High Court in Sanjay
Damodar Kale v. Kalyani Sanjay Kale while
relying upon the judgment in Sunita
Page 14 of 21
Kachwaha [Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha,
(2014) 16 SCC 715 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 753 :
(2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 589] , held that neither the
mere potential to earn, nor the actual earning of
the wife, howsoever meagre, is sufficient to deny
the claim of maintenance.
90.4. An able-bodied husband must be
presumed to be capable of earning sufficient
money to maintain his wife and children, and
cannot contend that he is not in a position to earn
sufficiently to maintain his family, as held by the
Delhi High Court in Chander Parkash v. Shila
Rani. The onus is on the husband to establish
with necessary material that there are sufficient
grounds to show that he is unable to maintain
the family, and discharge his legal obligations for
reasons beyond his control. If the husband does
not disclose the exact amount of his income, an
adverse inference may be drawn by the court.
90.5. This Court in Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid
Khan cited the judgment in Chander
Parkash [Chander Parkash v. Shila Rani, 1968
SCC OnLine Del 52 : AIR 1968 Del 174] with
approval, and held that the obligation of the
husband to provide maintenance stands on a
higher pedestal than the wife.
(d) Maintenance of minor children
91. The living expenses of the child would
include expenses for food, clothing, residence,
medical expenses, education of children. Extra
coaching classes or any other vocational training
courses to complement the basic education must
be factored in, while awarding child support.
Albeit, it should be a reasonable amount to be
awarded for extracurricular/coaching classes,
and not an overly extravagant amount which
may be claimed.
92. Education expenses of the children must be
normally borne by the father. If the wife is
working and earning sufficiently, the expenses
may be shared proportionately between the
parties.
Page 15 of 21
(e) Serious disability or ill health
93. Serious disability or ill health of a spouse,
child/children from the marriage/dependent
relative who require constant care and recurrent
expenditure, would also be a relevant
consideration while quantifying maintenance.
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]
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.
xxx xxx xxx xxx
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
Page 16 of 21
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 , 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, (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, the
Supreme Court was considering the
interpretation of Section 125 Cr PC. The Court
held : (SCC p. 196, para 13)
“13.3. … purposive interpretation needs to
be given to the provisions of Section 125
Page 17 of 21
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
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.
V. Enforcement of orders of maintenance
114. Enforcement of the order of maintenance is
the most challenging issue, which is encountered
by the applicants. If maintenance is not paid in a
timely manner, it defeats the very object of the
social welfare legislation. Execution petitions
usually remain pending for months, if not years,
which completely nullifies the object of the law.
The Bombay High Court in Sushila Viresh
Chhadva v. Viresh Nagshi Chhadva held that :
(SCC OnLine Bom para 7)
Page 18 of 21
“7. … The direction of interim alimony and
expenses of litigation under Section 24 is
one of urgency and it must be decided as
soon as it is raised and … the law takes
care that nobody is disabled from
prosecuting or defending the matrimonial
case by starvation or lack of funds.”
115. An application for execution of an order of
maintenance can be filed under the following
provisions:
(a) Section 28-A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
read with Section 18 of the Family Courts Act,
1984 and Order 21 Rule 94 CPC for executing an
order passed under Section 24 of the Hindu
Marriage Act (before the Family Court);
(b) Section 20(6) of the DV Act (before the Judicial
Magistrate); and
(c) Section 128 CrPC before the Magistrate’s
Court.
116. Section 18 of the Family Courts Act, 1984
provides that orders passed by the Family Court
shall be executable in accordance with the
CPC/CrPC.
117. Section 125(3) CrPC provides that if the
party against whom the order of maintenance is
passed fails to comply with the order of
maintenance, the same shall be recovered in the
manner as provided for fines, and the Magistrate
may award sentence of imprisonment for a term
which may extend to one month, or until
payment, whichever is earlier.
xxx xxx xxx xxx
Discussion and Directions on Enforcement of
orders of Maintenance
125. The order or decree of maintenance may be
enforced like a decree of a civil court, through the
provisions which are available for enforcing a
money decree, including civil detention,
attachment of property, etc. as provided by
various provisions of the CPC, more particularly
Sections 51, 55, 58, 60 read with Order 21.
Page 19 of 21
126. Striking off the defence of the respondent is
an order which ought to be passed in the last
resort, if the courts find default to be wilful and
contumacious, particularly to a dependent
unemployed wife, and minor children. Contempt
proceedings for wilful disobedience may be
initiated before the appropriate court.
VI. Final Directions
127. In view of the foregoing discussion 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
134. A copy of this judgment be communicated
by the Secretary General of this Court, to the
Registrars of all High Courts, who would in turn
circulate it to all the District Courts in the States.
It shall be displayed on the website of all District
Courts/Family Courts/Courts of Judicial
Magistrates for awareness and implementation.”
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner have
adjournment to address on the issues raised in seeking
revision.
10. It is further directed that as has been observed by
the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajnesh v. Neha (supra) the
amount directed to be paid under Section 125 of
Cr.P.C. being in the nature of a money decree, the
petitioner shall, if so advised file affidavit indicating
whether he will and how secure the amount directed
by the learned Family Court.
Page 20 of 21
11. To grant further opportunity to the petitioner, list
for ‘Fresh Admission’ in the week commencing
20.04.2026.
(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo)
Judge
Jyostna
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: JYOSTNARANI MAJHEE
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC
Date: 31-Mar-2026 18:56:34
Page 21 of 21
