Maintenance Must Reflect Actual Earnings During Litigation: MP High Court

In a ruling on maintenance jurisprudence under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that while maintenance should ordinarily be awarded from the date of filing of the application, courts must ensure that retrospective maintenance corresponds with the husband’s actual earnings during each year of litigation. The Court observed that mechanically applying a uniform maintenance amount for several past years, despite fluctuations in income, may result in unfairness and disproportionate financial burden.

The judgment was delivered by Justice Amit Seth in cross criminal revision petitions filed by husband Rakesh Kashyap and wife Ragini Yadav against a Family Court order granting Rs 20,000 per month as maintenance. While the wife sought enhancement, the husband challenged the retrospective application of the same amount from February 4, 2016.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rajnesh v. Neha, the High Court reiterated that maintenance ordinarily becomes payable from the date of filing because delays in matrimonial proceedings are beyond the claimant’s control. However, the Court clarified that the principle does not justify applying a fixed amount retrospectively without considering the husband’s financial condition during earlier years.

The Court noted that the husband’s salary at the time of final adjudication was Rs 70,499 per month, making Rs 20,000 a reasonable figure. Yet, during the initial years of litigation, his salary was substantially lower. Applying the same amount retrospectively would have consumed nearly 67% of his earlier income.

Accordingly, the High Court upheld maintenance from the filing date but directed recalculation of arrears proportionately on the basis of the husband’s yearly earnings, balancing the wife’s right to dignity with fairness to the paying spouse.