A single judge at Jodhpur bench of Rajasthan High Court held as follows,

From Paras 9 and 10,

9. The 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. This Court is further constrained to observe that if proceedings of maintenance remain pending for a decade and thereafter retrospective maintenance is awarded from the date of application, the very essence of “maintenance” stands diluted. The 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.
9.1 The 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. In the facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered view that the ends of justice would be adequately met if maintenance is directed to be paid from the date of the order instead of from the date of filing of the application. Such an approach would balance the rights of respondent No.1 to receive financial support with the financial capacity and practical limitations of the petitioner and would also preserve the true spirit and object underlying the law relating to maintenance.
10. This Court is of the considered opinion that the underlying rationale behind the aforesaid principle is to obviate the grave financial hardship which may be caused on account of imposition of huge retrospective maintenance liabilities accumulated during the prolonged pendency of maintenance proceedings. Such delayed adjudication often results in serious adverse consequences, inasmuch as the person concerned is suddenly burdened with discharge of substantial lump-sum arrears after several years, apart from the continuing obligation of monthly maintenance. The very object of maintenance jurisdiction is to provide immediate succour and to save the claimant from destitution and starvation. Maintenance proceedings, therefore, ought not to be permitted to linger indefinitely. In cases where such delay occurs, the responsibility cannot always be attributed solely to the parties and the systemic delay in adjudication also cannot be ignored. Consequently, directing payment of maintenance from the date of application, after inordinate delay in conclusion of proceedings, may in certain cases operate harshly and result in an excessively onerous financial burden, particularly upon a salaried person or a person having limited means, who is required to simultaneously clear accumulated arrears as well as continue making monthly payments.

Citations:

Other Sources:

Index of Maintenance Judgments under DV Act is here.