Section 125 CrPC | Maintenance Must Match Actual Earnings During Litigation Period: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that while maintenance in matrimonial disputes must ordinarily be granted from the date of filing of the application, courts cannot apply a uniform amount retrospectively without considering the husband’s actual earnings during different years of the litigation. The Court observed that such an approach may result in a disproportionate burden and would defeat the principle of fairness underlying maintenance law.

Justice Amit Seth passed the ruling while deciding cross criminal revision petitions filed by husband Rakesh Kashyap and wife Ragini Yadav against a Family Court order directing the husband to pay Rs 20,000 per month as maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The husband had challenged the retrospective application of the amount from February 4, 2016, while the wife sought enhancement of maintenance.

Appearing for the husband were advocates Prashant Sharma and Upendra Yadav, while advocate Ashok Kumar Ahirwar represented the wife.

According to the case records, the parties were married in Gwalior in May 2015. The wife alleged that soon after the marriage, she was subjected to dowry demands for Rs 5 lakh and a Swift Dzire car. She claimed that she was mentally and physically harassed, denied food, and eventually thrown out of her matrimonial home. An FIR was later registered against the husband and his family members.

The husband denied all allegations and argued that the wife was living separately without sufficient reason. He also claimed that the Family Court committed an error by directing payment of Rs 20,000 per month retrospectively from 2016 by relying on his salary figures prevailing years later during adjudication.

Before the High Court, the husband argued that his net monthly salary in 2015-16 was substantially lower than the income considered by the Family Court while finally deciding the matter. He contended that applying the same amount uniformly from 2016 would force him to pay nearly 68 percent of his salary during the initial years.

The High Court examined Supreme Court decisions in Rajnesh v. Neha, Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury and Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamla Devi dealing with maintenance principles. Referring to Rajnesh v. Neha, the Court reiterated that maintenance should ordinarily be awarded from the date of filing of the application because delays in litigation are beyond the control of the claimant.

However, the Court clarified that the judgment did not mandate a fixed lump sum for all previous years irrespective of the husband’s actual financial capacity. “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 Court said.

The Court noted that at the time of final adjudication, the husband had admitted a net monthly salary of Rs 70,499 and the Family Court’s fixation of Rs 20,000 amounted to around 28 percent of his income, which was reasonable. At the same time, the Court accepted that the amount could not mechanically apply to earlier years when his salary was significantly lower.

Accordingly, the High Court upheld the wife’s entitlement to maintenance from February 4, 2016, but modified the quantum for the retrospective period between 2016 and March 31, 2024. It directed that maintenance for those years be recalculated proportionately on the basis of the husband’s net salary for each financial year. The Court refused to enhance maintenance and also declined the husband’s plea seeking expungement of adverse observations made by the Family Court.

The Court further directed the husband to place his income tax returns for the relevant financial years before the Family Court within thirty days for recalculation of arrears.

It observed that maintenance proceedings are intended to secure dignity and reasonable comfort for a spouse and that courts must strike a balance between the needs of the claimant and the paying capacity of the respondent while determining a fair and workable amount.

Case Title: Rakesh Kashyap v. Smt Ragini Yadav with connected matter

Date of Order: May 13, 2026

Bench: Justice Amit Seth