Debabrata Pal v. Chandrima Das

“(a) From the 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. * * * 100. The law governing payment of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC from the date of application, was extended to HAMA by the Allahabad in Ganga Prasad High Court Srivastava v. Addl. Judge, District Gonda [Ganga Prasad Srivastava v. Addl. 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 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 District 7 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 from the date of maintenance 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. * * * * * * granting 111. The rationale of 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 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 the application 8 125 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 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.”

#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 maintenance proceedings remained pending is not within the control of the applicant. * * * * * * 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.” 11) Under such circumstances, this Court finds no illegality or irregularity in the order impugned. Accordingly, the revisional application is dismissed without any order as to costs. 9 12) Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings. (Shampa Sarkar, J.)