Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling, has declared that maintenance in domestic violence cases must be awarded from the date of application, not from the date of the court order.

Justice V.R.K. Krupa Sagar, presiding over the case, highlighted Section 125(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, and the Supreme Court's directive in the case of ‘Rajnesh v. Neha’, reiterating that maintenance should typically be awarded from the application date to address delays in litigation and ensure justice.

Section 125(2) specifically provides “Any such allowance for the maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be.”

The case originated with Palaparthi Shebha and her minor child filing an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking reliefs against Shebha's husband and six others. During the case's proceedings, they also filed an interim application for maintenance. The IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, ordered interim maintenance of Rs.20,000 per month for the wife and Rs.10,000 per month for the child, effective from the petition's filing date, April 24, 2019. The trial court's order was later modified by the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam, who ruled that the maintenance should start from April 1, 2022, citing the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Aggrieved by this modification, the petitioners sought revision. The petitioners' counsel, Arrabolu Sai Naveen, argued that the appellate court based its decision on facts not present in the record, and the modification conflicted with the Supreme Court's ruling in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021), which stipulated that maintenance should be awarded from the application date to ensure justice and fair play.

Contrarily, the respondents' counsel, Public Prosecutor (AP) Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, contended that the appellate court's decision considered the true facts and did not cause injustice.

The court observed that the appellate court's reasoning about the pandemic's impact on salaries was not supported by the case. It  emphasised that deciding based on extraneous facts amounts to impropriety, warranting intervention under Sections 397 and 401 of the CrPC. The court further noted that the husband, employed by Bank of America, earned Rs. 93,000 per month, and there was no evidence that he lost his job or salary due to the pandemic.

The court further highlighted the husband's legal obligation to support his wife and minor child from the date of their petition if they were unable to maintain themselves.

Consequently, the HC allowed the revision petition, set aside the appellate court’s order, and restored the trial court’s order, which granted maintenance from the date of application. The husband was directed to deposit the arrear maintenance within six weeks and continue paying monthly maintenance as per the trial court’s order.

 

Cause title: Palaparthi Shebha and Others v State of Andhra Pradesh and Others [Crl.R.C.No.1115 of 2023]