The Allahabad High Court has partly allowed a criminal revision filed by a woman seeking enhancement of maintenance and relief regarding the date from which the amount should be payable. The Court held that maintenance under Section 125 CrPC should ordinarily be granted from the date of filing of the application, in line with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rajnesh v. Neha.
Background of the Case
The revision was filed by Vartika against an order passed by the Family Court in Varanasi on June 17, 2025. The Family Court had directed her husband to pay ₹15,000 per month as maintenance. However, the payment was ordered from the date of judgment instead of the date of filing of the application.
Before the High Court, the revisionist argued that the amount awarded was inadequate considering the husband’s salary and her own financial condition. She claimed she had no stable source of income except small earnings from tuition work and sought enhancement of maintenance. She also argued that the Family Court failed to follow the Supreme Court judgment in Rajnesh v. Neha, which requires maintenance to be awarded from the date of application.
The State opposed the plea and defended the Family Court’s order, pointing out that the husband had financial responsibilities towards his children from his earlier marriage, including educational and medical expenses.
Court’s Observations
Justice Divesh Chandra Samant noted that the plea regarding the husband’s allegedly increased salary had not been raised before the Family Court during the original proceedings. The Court observed that such subsequent changes in financial circumstances could be examined separately under Section 127 CrPC, which permits alteration of maintenance on proof of changed circumstances.
The Court also referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Sanjeev Kapoor v. Chandan Kapoor, observing that courts dealing with maintenance matters retain jurisdiction to modify maintenance orders when circumstances change.
On the issue of the woman’s own income, the High Court pointed to her earlier statement recorded during cross-examination, where she had admitted earning around ₹3,000 per month from tuition and an additional ₹1,000 towards travel allowance.
However, the Court found merit in the argument regarding the starting date of maintenance. Referring to the Supreme Court ruling in Rajnesh v. Neha, the bench observed:
“The right to claim maintenance must date back to the date of filing the application.”
The High Court said the Family Court had failed to provide any reason for awarding maintenance only from the date of judgment despite being aware of the Supreme Court guidelines.
Decision
Partly allowing the revision petition, the High Court modified the Family Court’s order to the limited extent that maintenance would be payable from the date of filing of the application instead of the date of judgment.
The Court did not interfere with the quantum of maintenance awarded by the Family Court.
Case Details
Case Title: Vartika vs State of U.P. and Another
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 4131 of 2025
Judge: Justice Divesh Chandra Samant
Decision Date: May 15, 2026
