Madhya Pradesh High Court rejects husband’s ‘harassment’ claim over maintenance hike

The case pertains to a couple who got married in Indore on January 30, 2013. Their son was born on April 10, 2017. On October 30, 2018, the wife and minor son filed an application under Section 125 (order for maintenance of wives, children and parents) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) seeking maintenance from her husband.

The Indore family court, on April 8, 2025, awarded Rs 7,000 per month to the wife and Rs 3,000 per month to the minor son, payable from the date of the order. Both sides challenged the decision before the high court.

‘Miscarriage of justice’

On April 17, the court dismissed the husband’s revision plea and partly allowed the wife and son’s petition. While the wife’s maintenance remained unchanged, the son’s maintenance was enhanced from Rs 3,000 to Rs 9,000 per month. The court also directed that both the original and enhanced maintenance be paid retrospectively from October 30, 2018, the date on which the maintenance application was filed.

Justice Gajendra Singh rejected the husband’s plea and upheld the family court’s order.

Justice Gajendra Singh rejected the husband’s plea and upheld the family court’s order.The husband then approached the high court seeking modification of the retrospective payment direction. Appearing for the petitioner-husband, advocate Sangeeta Choudhary argued that he had been regularly paying the interim maintenance since 2018, and payment of the enhanced amount retrospectively from October 30, 2018 would result in an enormous financial burden upon him. It was argued that the order was a miscarriage of justice and perpetuated harassment of the husband.

Delay can’t deprive child, wife: Order

The court highlighted a Supreme Court ruling where directions under Article 142 of the Constitution established that maintenance in all cases should be awarded from the date of filing the application. The application under Section 125 CrPC remained pending for over six and a half years. The court observed that a wife and minor child cannot be deprived of proper maintenance simply due to prolonged judicial proceedings.

The court rejected the husband’s contention that retrospective payment creates an unmanageable financial burden or amounts to harassment. Instead, it noted that making the order prospective would cause suffering to the wife and minor child.

It noted that the interim maintenance previously paid by the petitioner, along with any amount received in other proceedings, is adjustable against the total arrears, mitigating unfairness. It also noted that the original interim maintenance was very meagre.