NaXXXX Kumar v. KaXXXX
Key Issue / Question of Law
Whether ad-interim maintenance can be granted under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in the absence of a specific application, and whether such maintenance should be payable from the date of filing of the application or from the date of the order. Also, whether the dismissal of a maintenance application under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 bars a claim under Section 125 CrPC.
Ratio Decidendi
Ad-interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is a discretionary relief granted to address urgent financial hardship pending adjudication of an interim maintenance application. It is distinct from interim maintenance — ad-interim relief is granted at an earlier stage, often ex parte or on prima facie material, while interim maintenance is granted after exchange of pleadings and affidavits of disclosure. No separate application is mandatory for ad-interim maintenance if the record contains admitted income documents or where delay in filing income affidavits causes hardship. However, ad-interim maintenance must be payable from the date of the order, not from the date of filing of the application, because it is a tentative relief based on prima facie assessment without full adjudication. The dismissal of a maintenance application under the DV Act does not bar a claim under Section 125 CrPC, as the two proceedings operate in different spheres and Section 21(d) of the DV Act contemplates that maintenance under DV Act is in addition to any maintenance granted under Section 125 CrPC.
Holding / Decision
The High Court of Delhi disposed of the revision petition, upholding the Family Court's grant of ad-interim maintenance of Rs. 6,000 per month to the wife, but modified the order to direct that such maintenance shall be payable from the date of the order (24.05.2024) and not from the date of filing of the application. The Court held that the Family Court did not err in granting ad-interim maintenance despite the absence of a specific application, as the husband's salary of Rs. 17,907 per month was admitted on record. The Court clarified that the dismissal of the wife's maintenance application under the DV Act did not bar her claim under Section 125 CrPC.
Background & Facts
The parties were married on 18.04.2016 at Jhajjar, Haryana. No child was born out of the wedlock. The husband works as a medical representative in a private sector with a monthly salary of Rs. 17,907. The wife has studied up to 12th standard and runs a beauty parlour at her home along with her sister. Due to temperamental differences, the wife left the matrimonial home on 10.05.2021. The husband alleged that the wife had earlier left the matrimonial home on 10.01.2020 and stayed at her parental home for about one year. The wife alleged that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the husband and his family members for bringing less dowry and stridhan, and that she was thrown out of the matrimonial home in May 2021. The wife filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC in July 2022. The Family Court granted ad-interim maintenance of Rs. 6,000 per month from the date of filing of the application. The husband challenged the order before the High Court.
Statutes Involved
- Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Provides for maintenance of wives, children and parents who are unable to maintain themselves; amended in 2001 to include provision for interim maintenance
- Section 125(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Provides that maintenance shall be payable from the date of the order, or if so ordered, from the date of application
- Section 12, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — Provides for filing complaint before Magistrate alleging domestic violence
- Section 21(d), Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — Provides that maintenance under DV Act shall be in addition to maintenance granted under Section 125 CrPC
- Section 165, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Empowers court to question witnesses to elicit truth
Full Analysis
Premium Content
Subscribe to access the full analysis, practical implications, and related case mapping.
Subscribe — ₹99/monthAlready a subscriber? Sign inAdvocate's Note — Agarawal Associates
Professional insight for advocates on how to deploy this judgment in practice...
Subscribe to access the Advocate's Note.
Key Conditional Rule / Important Caveat
This judgment applies ONLY where (a) the claimant has filed a maintenance petition under Section 125 CrPC, (b) there is admitted income of the respondent on record (e.g., salary slip, pay certificate), and (c) either the interim maintenance application is likely to take time for adjudication or the respondent is delaying filing of the affidavit of disclosure. Ad-interim maintenance is a discretionary relief, not a matter of right. If the respondent has no admitted income on record and has not delayed proceedings, the Court may deny ad-interim maintenance and instead expedite the interim maintenance application. The judgment does NOT apply where (a) the claimant has not demonstrated urgency or hardship, (b) the respondent's income is disputed and no documentary evidence is available, or (c) the matter is ready for adjudication of interim maintenance on affidavits. Ad-interim maintenance is payable from the date of order, not from the date of application — this rule applies only to ad-interim maintenance, not to interim maintenance (which under Rajnesh is payable from application date).
Cases Cited
- Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 — Supreme Court held that Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities is mandatory for interim maintenance; interim maintenance should ordinarily be granted from date of application; applications should be decided within 4-6 months.
- Kusum Sharma v. Mahinder Kumar Sharma (2014 SCC OnLine Del 7627, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 6793, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 12534, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 931) — Delhi High Court directed that if disposal of maintenance application takes time and causes hardship, ad-interim maintenance should be granted on the basis of admitted income of the respondent; also prescribed format for affidavit of assets.
- Manish Divedi v. Jyotsana (2019 SCC OnLine Del 10492) — Delhi High Court distinguished ad-interim maintenance from interim maintenance; held that ad-interim maintenance is tentative and based on prima facie assessment.
- Inder Singh v. Sumitra (2019 SCC OnLine Del 9485) — Delhi High Court held that filing of a separate application for interim maintenance is not a pre-condition under Section 125 CrPC; the Court can grant interim maintenance even without an application.
- Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena (2015) 6 SCC 353 — Supreme Court held that Section 125 CrPC was enacted to alleviate agony, hardship, and financial distress of a woman who has been compelled to leave her matrimonial home.
- Chaturbhuj v. Sitabai (2008) 2 SCC 316 — Supreme Court held that the object of Section 125 CrPC is to prevent vagrancy and destitution by ensuring basic necessities for a deserted wife.
Courtroom Arguments
For Petitioner
No Provision for Ad Interim Maintenance Under Section 125 — NaXXXX Kumar
Section 125 CrPC has no provision for grant of ad-interim maintenance. The Family Court erred by equating ad-interim maintenance with interim maintenance without a specific application.
For Respondent
Ad Interim Maintenance Valid Without Separate Application — NaXXXX Kumar
Ad-interim maintenance is a discretionary relief granted to prevent destitution. No separate application is mandatory — the Court can act on its own motion.
Found this useful? Share it with your colleagues.
One tap sends the case name, citation, key issue and link.
Take This Further in Court
2 courtroom argument frameworks available for this case — full submission structure, bench question simulator, and opposition rebuttals.
Disclaimer: This summary is prepared by Agarawal Associates for informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. For legal matters, consult a qualified advocate. © 2026 Agarawal Associates — apexdigest.in