The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that while maintenance under Section 125 CrPC can be granted from the date of filing of the application, the amount payable for previous years must correspond to the husband’s actual net income during those years.
Justice Amit Seth passed the ruling while deciding cross-revisions filed by husband Rakesh Kashyap and wife Ragini Yadav against a Family Court order awarding ₹20,000 per month as maintenance to the wife.
The Court partly modified the Family Court’s order and directed that the maintenance amount for the retrospective period from February 2016 to March 2024 should be recalculated proportionately on the basis of the husband’s net salary for each financial year.
The wife had approached the Family Court under Section 125 CrPC alleging dowry harassment and cruelty after her marriage in May 2015. She claimed that her husband and his family demanded ₹5 lakh and a Swift Dzire car as dowry and later forced her to leave the matrimonial home.
She further stated that an FIR was registered against the husband and his family members in December 2015. According to the wife, she had no independent source of income while the husband was employed as a Sub-Engineer with the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior.
The Family Court eventually granted ₹20,000 monthly maintenance from the date of filing of the application, i.e., February 4, 2016.
Before the High Court, the husband argued that the Family Court wrongly applied the maintenance amount retrospectively without considering that his salary in 2016 was substantially lower than his income at the time of final adjudication.
He relied on Supreme Court decisions including Rajnesh v. Neha, Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury and Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamla Devi to argue that maintenance could broadly correspond to around 25% of the husband’s net salary and that maintenance is ordinarily payable from the date of filing of the application.
The wife, meanwhile, sought enhancement of maintenance, arguing that the husband’s salary had increased significantly over the years and that she was entitled to maintain the same standard of living enjoyed by him.
The High Court observed that the purpose of maintenance proceedings is to ensure that the wife is able to maintain herself with reasonable dignity and comfort.
The Court noted that the husband’s net monthly salary at the time of adjudication was ₹70,499 and that the ₹20,000 maintenance awarded by the Family Court amounted to nearly 28% of his salary, which was fair and reasonable.
However, Justice Seth held that applying the same ₹20,000 amount retrospectively from 2016 would become disproportionate because the husband’s salary during the initial years was much lower.
The Court observed:
“Applying the present quantum of Rs.20,000/- uniformly over the entire retrospective period from 04.02.2016 would result in the non-applicant/husband having to pay maintenance at approximately 67%–45% of his then net salary in the initial years.”
The High Court upheld the wife’s entitlement to maintenance and confirmed that maintenance would remain payable from the date of filing of the application in line with the Supreme Court ruling in Rajnesh v. Neha.
However, it directed that for the period between February 4, 2016 and March 31, 2024, the maintenance amount must be proportionately recalculated according to the husband’s yearly net income.
The Court refused to enhance the maintenance amount and also declined the husband’s request to expunge adverse observations made by the Family Court regarding cruelty allegations.
Case Title: Rakesh Kashyap v. Smt. Ragini Yadav & connected matter
Case Number: Criminal Revision Nos. 1050/2025 and 1158/2025
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Judge: Justice Amit Seth
Date: May 13, 2026
