Prakash Dheple Vs Vithabai and Anr on 10 May 2024

Posted on October 6, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court directed to Impose interest of Maintenance arrears.

From Para 9,

9. No doubt there is an evidence of income of respondent no.1 that she is getting salary of Rs.3,500/- from that job, but when an amount of maintenance, which was granted earlier to the respondents is considered. It is meager amount of Rs. 1500/- and Rs. 2000/- p.m. It was not possible for them to maintain themselves out of it. Therefore, merely because she is doing a job in private Company the applicant who is able bodied husband and father cannot be exonerated from the liability to pay the maintenance. The proceeding under section 125 of the Cr.P.C. is a summary proceeding. On this ground suppressing material fact does not extinguish right of maintenance. It is not an equitable relief which disentitles the persons who are not coming before the Court with clean hands. The learned trial Court has considered the earlier maintenance amount. The learned trial Court has considered the facts situation of both the sides, their status and needs. The learned trial Court has also considered the prices of the essential commodities which have gone high. Even though respondent no.1 is earning some amount, it is not shown that it is more than sufficient amount to her. Further merely because the wife is earning the husband cannot be exonerated from the liability to pay the maintenance amount. Therefore, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, though the respondent no.1 has not disclosed the fact that she is earning some amount by doing such a job, she cannot be held liable for giving a false evidence under section 340 of the Cr.P.C. If such course is adopted then it has to be adopted against applicant/husband and wife in each and every case, who are concealing such fact and showing that they are not having source of income.

From Para 12,

12. The applicant has challenged two proceedings of maintenance in this Revision Application. Therefore, also revision is also not maintainable. Revision Application, therefore, sans merit and it deserves to be dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand Only) with @ 9% p.m. interest. It is because respondents must have incurred some amount for contesting this revision. The trial Courts are not awarding interest on maintenance amount. There is no any legal ban to award interest on that amount of maintenance. The husbands or fathers are many a times are not depositing the arrears of maintenance for years together. They have no fear or burden to payment of interest on that amount of maintenance. It is a serious legal mischief in mischief. Section 125 of the CrPC does not prohibit towards maintenance. Therefore, Courts of District Judiciary are expected to award interest on the amount of maintenance, so that these weaker sections of the society will get their maintenance amount expeditiously. It will serve the purpose of speed justice. Thus, in order to secure their rights fully, effectively and speedily which is an object of justice interest must be awarded which is rationally expected. Their amount of maintenance shall not remain in the hands of the other side which deprives them for maximum period from it. Thus, it is now mandatory to award interest on the amount of maintenance for that this judgment shall be circulated to the District Judiciary of Maharashtra.

Prakash Dheple Vs Vithabai and Anr on 10 May 2024

Index of Maintenance Judgments under Sec 144 BNSS is here.

Sandeep Walia Vs Monika Uppal on 18 Jul 2022

Posted on October 2, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Delhi High Court held that

From Paras 7 and 8,

7. Ms. Sunita Arora, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-wife vehemently opposed the present revision and submitted that the instant case has to be considered from a different perspective. According to her the revisionist-husband is not truthful in his disclosure in affidavit of income filed before the Family Court. She has drawn the attention of this court to various paragraphs to show that the revisionist claiming himself to be jobless is still incurring a monthly expenditure of about Rs.35,210/- per month. She also points out that the revisionist has shown his mother to be dependent on him, however, has not disclosed that she is already getting a pension of Rs.25,000/- per month. She further states that in column No.26, which relates to a number of the bank account, the revisionist has shown only one account of ICICI Bank whereas he is maintaining a different joint account in the State Bank of India, which has been admitted by him in his cross-examination. She also points out that the revisionist in his educational and professional qualification column has mentioned only graduation, whereas, in his cross-examination, he unequivocally admits that he has done one year diploma in Graphic Designing. She also submits that the revisionist is maintaining a motorcycle and a car and is living in a 3-BHK Flat.
8. From the material available on record, including the cross- examination, she points out that there are various credit entries in the account of her husband. He has also invested amount in mutual funds and he is getting regular dividends therefrom.

From Para 12,

12. Under the aforesaid circumstances, as noted above, it can be safely concluded that the petitioner was not truthful in disclosure of his correct income. His employment as a Driver with his own maternal uncle is also highly unreliable. The lifestyle, which the petitioner is maintaining, would clearly demonstrate that he is capable of earning sufficient money to run not only his livelihood but of his wife also. The respondent-wife while placing documents on record has clearly proved that the petitioner is capable of earning a handsome salary. The petitioner also admitted that he had been earning about Rs.30,000/- per month.

Sandeep Walia Vs Monika Uppal on 18 Jul 2022

Citations: [2022:DHC:2655]

Other Sources:

Index of Maintenance cases is here.

Nidhi Jain Vs Ankit Jain on 31 Jul 2025

Posted on October 1, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Delhi High Court held that

5. Reliance is placed on settled legal precedents, including the Supreme Court’s judgment in Rajnesh v. Neha Criminal Appeal 730/2020 and the case of Sandeep Walia v. Monika Uppal CRL.REV.P. 179/2019, which recognize that when a husband conceals his income or assets, the court must take into account his true financial status for the determination of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Furthermore, the Petitioner cites the case of Vikas Ahluwalia v. Simran Ahluwalia FAO143/2013 and Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. The Motor & General Traders Civil Appeal Nos. 2120 to 2122 of 1972, where courts have acknowledged that assets are often transferred in matrimonial disputes to avoid paying rightful dues. The Petitioner further asserts that the Respondent’s actions, including domestic violence, illegal retention of stridhan, and filing of frivolous litigations, are part of a larger scheme to deprive her of her legal entitlements.
17. No doubt, the petition was filed way back in the year 2013 and has not been disposed of till date and applications under Section 311 Cr. PC have been preferred at the stage of final arguments. However, power under Section 311 Cr.P.C can be exercised at any stage of enquiry, trial and other proceedings. Such power can be invoked even at the stage of final arguments.
18. Matrimonial litigation, particularly where financial dependency and concealment are alleged, demands a sensitive and pragmatic approach. The documents and witnesses sought to be introduced by the petitioner are not collateral or immaterial but rather, they directly affect the determination of maintenance which is a matter of subsistence. The Family Court ought to have adopted a more purposive interpretation of its enabling powers under Section 311 Cr.P.C., instead of taking a hyper-technical view.
19. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 07.06.2024 is set aside. The petition is allowed. The learned Family Court is directed to permit the petitioner to summon the concerned witnesses with the relevant record. However, it is directed that the remaining proceedings be conducted expeditiously and all out efforts be made to dispose of the case as early as possible and preferably within a period of next three months. Both sides are directed to cooperate with the trial Court in an effort to expeditiously dispose of the petition.

Nidhi Jain Vs Ankit Jain on 31 Jul 2025

Citations:

Other Sources:

Index of Maintenance cases is here.

Resham Lal Dewangan Vs Suman Dewangan on 09 May 2025

Posted on September 28, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of High Court of Chhattisgarh held that once a divorce decree is granted on the ground that wife is living in adultery then, wife suffers from the disqualification to claim maintenance from her ex-husband.

From Paras 19-21,

19.Sub- Section 4 of Section 125 of the CrPC provides that if a woman lives in adultery, whose marriage is still subsisting, she is not entitled for
maintenance from her husband. Suppose, a decree for divorce is granted on the ground of her living in adultery, can it be said that the said disqualification of which she was suffering from all along, during the subsistence of the marriage, will cease to exist, because of the decree for divorce?. The prudent answer to this question shall be an emphatic – “No”. The decree obtained by the husband for divorce on proving the adulterous life of the wife cannot give a license to her to continue to live in illicit relationship and to get her right to claim maintenance revived. Therefore, I conclude that a divorced wife, who lives in adultery, viz., living in illicit relationship with man other than her former husband is disqualified from claiming maintenance, under Section 125 of the Code.
20.If once the decree for divorce is granted on the ground of adultery, such finding is relevant for deciding the issue of adultery in the present case. The decree is a decree passed on proof of the claim made by means of sufficient evidence which has not been challenged by the aggrieved party.
21.Considering the aforesaid legal proposition of law and considering the facts of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the decree for divorce
granted by the family Court in favour of the applicant-husband is sufficient proof that the applicant-wife was living in adultery. When once such a decree is in force, it is not possible for this Court to take a different view contrary to the decree granted by the Civil court. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the decree granted by the Family Court clearly goes to prove that the applicant-wife is living in adultery and thus, applicant-wife suffers from the disqualification to claim maintenance from the petitioner.

Resham Lal Dewangan Vs Suman Dewangan on 09 May 2025

Index of Divorce judgments is here. Index of Maintenance judgments is here.

K.Harish Kumar Vs Vanathy Rajkumar on 24 Apr 2024

Posted on September 25, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Karnataka High Court held as follows,

From Para 8,

8. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha1, if there is any dispute with respect to the declaration made in the affidavit of disclosure, the aggrieved party shall seek permission of the Court to serve interrogatories and seek production of relevant documents from the opposite party. The Court had elaborately discussed about the difficulties that the Court faces while granting interim maintenance and without material it is done on the guess work. As per the judgment of the Apex Court, they have to produce bank statements, income tax returns at least for two years prior to the application. Even if the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent is taken into consideration that the bank account is a joint account, still the respondent have to disclose the statement which is two years prior to the closing date of the account and whatever is the income as per the bank statement or whatever are the details or the relevant factors, the duty is cast upon the wife to produce all these documents.
9. In that view of the matter, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition directing the wife to produce income tax returns, bank statements two years prior to 26.08.2019. The husband shall cooperate with the Court below in deciding the application for interim maintenance. No further adjournments shall be granted by the Court. The Court below shall stick to the same schedule as per the orders passed in WP.No.3267/2024 dated 11.03.2024.

K.Harish Kumar Vs Vanathy Rajkumar on 24 Apr 2024

Index of maintenance cases is here.

Shivkarthik G.S and Anr Vs Nil on 04 Sep 2025

Posted on September 25, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Madras High Court held that Family Courts do have power to waive the cooling of period in a divorce by mutual consent under Indian Divorce Act.

From Paras 8-10,

8.The only point that arises for consideration is whether the mandatory waiting period of one year from the date of separation has to be compulsorily
sat through by the parties, who have already decided to part ways, by filing a mutual consent divorce petition. The Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in Anup Disalva’s case, took note of an earlier decision of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in Saumya Ann Thomas vs Union of India reported in 2010 SCC Online Kerala 5197 and held that the stipulation of a period of two years being a minimum mandatory period under Section 10A is arbitrary and oppressive and that the said two year period has to be read as one year, taking into account the one year period stipulated in similar legislations namely the Special Marriage Act ( Section 28(1) ) Hindu Marriage Act ( Section 13B(1)) and Parsi Marriage Act (Section 32B(1)).
9.The Honourable Division Bench further took note of the fact that an application for divorce by mutual consent presented by both the husband and
wife reflects the will of the parties to separate and get rid of the marriage. The Honourable Division Bench taking note of the entitlement of a spouse to file a petition for divorce under Section 10 on other available grounds, without any waiting period and the entitlement and power of the Court to grant a divorce, even before the period of one year, subject to being satisfied with the ground seeking divorce being made out, held that, while that is the position even for a contested proceeding before the Court, there can be no spokes put, impeding the parties from seeking divorce by mutual consent. The Honourable Division Bench, in fact, declared the stipulation of one year period or more, for the purposes of filing a divorce by mutual consent under Section 10A, as violative of fundamental rights and declared it to be unconstitutional.
10.Though said judgment of the Kerala High Court may not have a binding precedentiary value before this Court, the judgment will definitely have persuasive value, for this Court to take note of the ratio laid down by the Honourable Division Bench.
11.Even otherwise, the Honourable Supreme Court, in Shilpa Sailesh’s case, has clarified the ratio laid down in Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur,
reported in 2017 (8) SCC 746, and held that the Courts can always waive the cooling period of six months under the Hindu Marriage Act to enable the parties to obtain a divorce by mutual consent, earlier.
12.However, the Family Court has relied on Amardeep Singh’s case, to hold that the one year separation period is mandatory under section 13B(1) of
the Hindu Marriage Act and therefore similarly even under the Divorce Act the cooling period cannot be condoned or waived.

From Paras 16-18,

16.Even though there is no decision of this Court toeing the same lines of the Kerala High Court, striking down the provisions of Section 10A regarding the mandatory waiting period, considering the import of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shilpa Sailesh’s case as well as the Hon’ble Division Bench in the Kerala High Court, the Family Court is certainly entitled to waive the mandatory waiting period and cannot compel the parties to sit through the same before presenting a petition for divorce in the form of mutual consent, under Section 10A of the Divorce Act.
17.Independently, I also find that both the petitioners have filed separate affidavits even in this revision, affirming their decision to go separate ways. The interest of any children is also not involved in the present case, since the parties were not blessed with any issues and both the petitioners have categorically asserted that the relationship has become irreconcilable and distressing. In such circumstances, compelling the petitioners to wait for the mandatory period to expire would only further increase their agony. The petitioners have also stated that their decision is voluntary and only based on their free will and there is no fraud, collusion or undue influence brought upon them to file the mutual consent divorce petition.
18.In the light of the above, I am inclined to set aside the docket order of the Family Court, Coimbatore, and I direct the Family Court, Coimbatore, to
number DOP CFR.No.3726 of 2025, if it is otherwise in order. The Family Court, Coimbatore, shall not return / reject the petition on the ground that the parties have to wait for the mandatory period of one year from separation to pass off, before they are entitled to file an application for divorce by mutual consent.

Shivkarthik G.S and Anr Vs Nil on 04 Sep 2025

Index of Divorce judgments is here.

K Sreekanth Naik Vs P Nalini and Anr on 27 Mar 2025

Posted on September 21, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court held that a non-cooperating wife with the Criminal trail who has been evading appearance before the Court,.

From Paras 3-6,

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 1st respondent is not cooperating with the trail and has been evading appearance before the Court, even though bailable warrants were issued against the 1st respondent. It is also submitted that the bailable warrants were cancelled soon after the 1st respondent filed a memo undertaking to appear.
4. Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent submits that even the petitioner was also absent on the last date of hearing, when the matter was listed for trial.
5. It is further submitted that the matter is now fixed for trial on 22.04.2017, and the 1st respondent would appear in Court and adduce the evidence.
6. Considering the submission, the Criminal Petition is disposed off with an observation that the learned Magistrate should endeavor to complete the trial as expeditiously as possible, preferable within a period of six (06) months from the date of the receipt of this order.

2025-03-27 K Sreekanth Naik Vs P Nalini and Anr on 27 Mar 2025

Citations:

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/79857987/

Thanks to Adv Ram G for the below copy. He practiced law (all subjects) at Anantapur Courts and reachable on +91-90000-32896

2025-03-27 K.Sreekanth_Naik_vs_P_Nalini_-_2025_Supreme(Online)(AP)_3987_-_Supreme

Disclaimer: This is a case that I handled myself for the husband. This is my second reportable judgment.

Raj Kamal Yadav and Anr Vs Manju Yadav and Other on 7 Aug 2025

Posted on September 14, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A single Judge of Delhi High Court held as follows,

From Para 15,

15. First and foremost, it may be noted that the allegation of “arm twisting” the respondent by the petitioners is a fine piece of irony. In fact, if anyone is twisting arms here, it is the respondent herself. Of course, not in the literal sense she claims, but in the far more creative, metaphorical sense of using the criminal process as her personal pressure lever. The oblique motive is hardly a guess i.e. it is either to extract what she calls “maintenance,” which her husband has not paid, or to drag the petitioners all the way from Bijnor to Delhi, making them undergo the harassment and humiliation, until her husband succumbs to her demands on the dotted lines. The reasons are not far to seek as they are lying in plain sight. Let us examine how.

From Para 17,

17. The accused no.1 to 5 named in the above police complaint are Harish Yadav, Mangal Singh Yadav, Moorti Devi, Kusum Lata and Chander Pal. None of the petitioners is named therein. A bare perusal of the above makes it abundantly clear that there is not even a whisper of any role attributed to the petitioners, nor any suggestion that they were present at the scene, much less that they caused injury or instigated those who allegedly did during the incident of 18.12.2012. On this ground alone, the belated attempt to drag the petitioners into the proceedings through a subsequent complaint under Section 200 CrPC qua the same incident of 18.12.2012 reeks of pure afterthought on the part of the respondent.

From Para 20,

20. Significantly, it is not even the respondent’s case that her parents and sister were present during the alleged incident. Surprisingly, their depositions have not been placed on record. It is obvious that their evidence, therefore, is nothing but hearsay, dressed up as testimony. It may be reasonably presumed that far from being independent, they merely echoed the complainant’s version, word for word, as dictated and their testimony has minimal probative value.

From Para 28,

28. Before parting, I cannot but note the rather desperate attempt of the respondent’s leaned counsel to dissuade this Court from exercising jurisdiction, on the specious plea of statutory bar. The argument, though dressed in attractive garb, doe not withstand scrutiny. It reminds one of the age-old courtroom maxim: “if you have the facts, hammer the facts; if you have the law, hammer the law; if you have neither, hammer the desk”. Unfortunately for the respondent, in this case, facts do not support her, law does not sustain her case and desk-thumping cannot rescue her. On all three counts, the respondent fails.

Raj Kamal Yadav and Anr Vs Manju Yadav and Other on 7 Aug 2025

Index of Quash Judgments is here.

Geeta and Anr Vs State and Anr on 10 Sep 2025

Posted on September 13, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A single Judge of Delhi High Court that, concealing actual income and withholding the most relevant documents which alone could establish her present financial incapacity should lead to adverse inference against wife.

From Paras 9-11,

9. At the outset, it will be apposite to note that Section 125 of the Cr.P.C is a beneficial provision, premised on a moral obligation of husband and father, and intended to prevent, inter alia, the wife and children from being subjected to the adversities of vagrancy and destitution. It is also trite that proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. are summary in nature and the Court has to take a prima facie view of the dispute between the parties.
10. In the above context, this Court has carefully examined the evidence on record as well as the findings recorded by the learned Family Court. Insofar as the wife’s claim for maintenance is concerned, it emerges that she had admitted in her cross-examination that she is employed in the Education Department at Khekra, Baghpat, though on a temporary basis. She further admitted that her salary slip of December 2016 reflected her salary as Rs. 33,052/- and her income tax return for the year 2017-2018 also disclosed an annual income of Rs. 4,00,724/-, though it is her case that thereafter, her services were terminated by way of judgment dated 25.07.2017 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after which she was working on a temporary basis. While she claimed that her current salary is only Rs. 10,000/- per month, she failed to produce any recent salary slip or Form-16 to substantiate the same, and thus, no recent salary certificate was placed before the learned Family Court despite opportunities given by the learned Trial Court. She also did not offer any plausible explanation in the evidence for withholding recent salary details.
11. The learned Family Court, thus rightly reached to a conclusion that such omission, without any cogent explanation, casts a doubt on the genuineness of her claim and justifies an adverse inference against her. The learned Family Court, therefore, rightly held that the wife had concealed her actual income and withheld the most relevant documents which alone could establish her present financial incapacity. This Court concurs with that view, as the primary ingredient for grant of maintenance to a wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. – i.e. her inability to maintain herself – has not been satisfactorily proved, in absence of clear and reliable evidence of financial hardship, the claim of the wife becomes speculative and cannot be sustained.

Geeta and Anr Vs State and Anr on 10 Sep 2025

Index of Maintenance Judgments u/s 144 BNSS is here.

Naveen Kumar Vs Kavita on 01 Jul 2025

Posted on September 5, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Delhi High Court held as follows. Few declarations of overruled aspects of Maintenance cases are of interest in this Judgment.

From Para 11 and 12,

Distinction between Interim Relief/Maintenance and Ad-Interim Relief/Maintenance
11. In law, interim relief is a temporary relief granted by the Court after hearing both parties, pending final adjudication of the dispute. It is typically granted upon consideration of pleadings, replies, and after evaluating prima facie rights and urgency. In contrast, ad-interim relief is a provisional relief granted ex-parte or at the initial stage, often before the opposite party is served or has filed a reply. It is essentially an urgent measure granted to prevent irreparable harm, subject to further hearing and confirmation.
12. As far as maintenance is concerned, interim maintenance is an allowance granted to the aggrieved party during the pendency of proceedings and till final adjudication, such as under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. or the Domestic Violence Act, generally after considering pleadings and material placed by both parties. Ad-interim maintenance, on the other hand, is a provisional maintenance granted at the preliminary stage, i.e. prior to adjudicating even the interim maintenance, to alleviate urgent hardship being faced by a dependent spouse or child, pending a more detailed consideration of the case. Thus, while both are temporary in nature, the key difference lies in the stage of grant, extent of hearing accorded before the relief is granted, and the prima facie opinion formed by the Court.

From Para 26 to Para 28,

26. Thus, in Kusum Sharma v. Mahinder Kumar Sharma (supra), it was directed that upon the filing of a maintenance petition, notice shall be issued to the respondent, who shall file a reply, and the pleadings shall be completed. Thereafter, both parties were required to simultaneously file affidavits of income, assets, and expenditure, to facilitate an informed and fair assessment of the claim. It was in this context that the Court permitted the grant of ad-interim maintenance, either on the basis of an admitted document, such as a salary slip already available on record by way of pleadings, or on the basis of admissions contained in the respondent‘s income affidavit. In the absence of any such material, the Court was required to hear both parties before determining any ad-interim amount. Thus, the clear mandate was that an ex-parte ad-interim maintenance order, without hearing the respondent or without there being any material indicating his admitted income, was not to be passed by a court of law.
27. At this juncture, it is relevant to note that in Rajnesh v. Neha: (2021) 2 SCC 324, the Hon‘ble Supreme Court directed that Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities would be filed by the claimant along with the maintenance petition/interim maintenance application. Similarly, the respondent would file his Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities along with the reply. Thus, the directions issued in Kusum Sharma v. Mahinder Kumar Sharma (supra) stood, in effect, overruled to this extent.
28. Therefore, it can be safely held that once the Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities has been filed by both the parties, or even if the respondent has not filed the same along with his reply to the maintenance petition, but there are documents on record showing some admitted income of the respondent, the Court can grant ad-interim maintenance to alleviate the hardship of the claimant, pending its decision on the grant of interim maintenance and determination of its quantum.

From Para 31 and 32,

31. However, the Hon‘ble Supreme Court, in the decision in Rajnesh v. Neha (supra), observed that a party claiming maintenance, whether as a spouse, partner in a civil union, live-in relationship, or common-law marriage, should file a concise application for interim maintenance, along with an Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities, as a mandatory requirement. The rationale was to enable the Court to make an objective and informed assessment of the financial capacities of the parties at the interim stage. Thus, the Hon‘ble Supreme Court emphasized that interim maintenance cannot be granted in a vacuum and solely on the basis of guess-work, and must be primarily based on the material placed before the Court through pleadings and affidavits from both sides.
32. Therefore, in view of the directions issued in Rajnesh v. Neha (supra), it has now been mandated by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court that a concise and specific application seeking interim maintenance should ordinarily be filed by the claimant, accompanied by the requisite affidavit of assets and liabilities.

From Paras 35-37,

35. Indeed, the distinction between interim and ad-interim maintenance lies in the delay – and that distinction is vital. In Rajnesh v. Neha (supra), the Supreme Court itself noted that applications for interim maintenance should ideally be decided within a period of 4 to 6 months. It is within this interim period before the adjudication of interim maintenance application that the grant of ad-interim maintenance assumes its true significance.
36. Just as interim maintenance is granted as a temporary measure pending adjudication of the main petition for maintenance, ad-interim maintenance, as recognized in judicial precedents, serves as a temporary measure pending adjudication of the application for interim maintenance
37. Thus, where the record already contains some admitted income documents such as salary slips, or where there is unreasonable delay in filing of income affidavits by the respondent, the Court may, in the interest of equity, step in and grant ad-interim maintenance – without there being any specific application for grant of ad-interim maintenance filed by the concerned party. Accordingly, for determining ad-interim maintenance, the procedure laid down in Kusum Sharma v. Mahinder Kumar Sharma (supra) would continue to govern the field, since till date, the observation regarding the same has neither been interfered nor set-aside by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court.

Naveen Kumar Vs Kavita on 01 Jul 2025

Citations: [2025:DHC:5114]

Other Sources:

Index of Maintenance cases under Section 125 CrPC here.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: 1-Judge Bench Decision

Prakash Dheple Vs Vithabai and Anr on 10 May 2024

Sandeep Walia Vs Monika Uppal on 18 Jul 2022

Nidhi Jain Vs Ankit Jain on 31 Jul 2025

Resham Lal Dewangan Vs Suman Dewangan on 09 May 2025

K.Harish Kumar Vs Vanathy Rajkumar on 24 Apr 2024

Shivkarthik G.S and Anr Vs Nil on 04 Sep 2025

K Sreekanth Naik Vs P Nalini and Anr on 27 Mar 2025

Raj Kamal Yadav and Anr Vs Manju Yadav and Other on 7 Aug 2025

Geeta and Anr Vs State and Anr on 10 Sep 2025

Naveen Kumar Vs Kavita on 01 Jul 2025