‘Not money recovery suit’: Rajasthan High Court spares husband from ‘crushing’ Rs 20 lakh maintenance arrears

Justice Farjand Ali said proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act are “remedial and protective in nature”.

“The purpose of maintenance is to provide immediate support to avoid starvation and destitution. If the claimant has managed to sustain herself, survive, and pursue litigation for all these years, then a grant of huge retrospective arrears after a lapse of a decade cannot be said to advance the object of immediate sustenance,” the Rajasthan High Court said on May 12.

“The law never contemplated that maintenance proceedings would assume the nature of a money recovery suit or culminate into a colossal retrospective financial burden incapable of being discharged by a salaried employee,” the high court added.

‘Unbearable financial liability’

• The Rajasthan High Court said courts must maintain a “delicate balance” between the needs of the claimant and the actual financial capacity of the person directed to pay maintenance.
• It observed that maintenance proceedings were never intended to become “money recovery suits” culminating in enormous retrospective liabilities that a salaried individual may be incapable of paying.
• Justice Ali noted that the maintenance case had remained pending for almost 10 to 11 years before the trial court, eventually resulting in huge arrears being imposed upon the husband from the date of institution of proceedings.
• A monthly maintenance amount may be manageable for a salaried person if paid periodically, but directing payment of arrears accumulated over more than a decade in one stroke creates an “unbearable and oppressive financial liability”, the Rajasthan High Court said.
• The judgment further stated that courts “cannot remain oblivious to the practical realities of life” and an ordinary salaried employee cannot reasonably be expected to suddenly clear arrears accumulated over a decade at the rate of Rs 20,000 per month.

Dispute arose from domestic violence proceedings

According to the case records, the wife had filed an application before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate court in Bikaner alleging cruelty, harassment, and dowry demand against her husband and his family members. She sought protection, residence, maintenance, and compensation under the Domestic Violence Act.

The husband denied the allegations and claimed that the proceedings were initiated as a counterblast to a divorce petition filed by him, the Rajasthan High Court noted.

The trial court, by an order dated February 27, 2025, partly allowed the plea and awarded maintenance of Rs 20,000 per month, Rs 5,000 towards accommodation, and Rs 2 lakh as compensation to the wife.

Subsequently, the appellate court modified the maintenance amount to Rs 10,000 per month for the period between November 18, 2014, the date of filing of the application, and August 16, 2018, when the husband entered government service, while affirming the remaining directions.

Compensation for ‘cruelty’ set aside

The Rajasthan High Court also held that the direction issued by the trial court on the payment of Rs 2 lakh compensation for alleged mental and physical harassment could not be sustained because criminal proceedings relating to the allegations were already pending before a competent court.

It said that granting compensation based on disputed allegations before the conclusion of criminal proceedings would amount to “pre-judging the controversy” and could prejudice the rights of either side.

The court emphasised that proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act are “remedial and protective in nature” and cannot be converted into a substitute for criminal adjudication.

HC modifies maintenance directions

Allowing the revision petition partly, the Rajasthan High Court held that while the amount of Rs 20,000 per month awarded by the trial court was justified, it would be payable only from February 27, 2025, the date of the trial court order, and not retrospectively from the date of filing of the application.

The high court accordingly quashed the appellate court’s direction requiring payment of maintenance from 2014 till the petitioner entered government service, terming it “wholly unreasonable, excessive and unsustainable in the eyes of law”.

It also clarified that if the wife was already receiving maintenance in any other proceeding, the amount would be adjusted against the maintenance directed in the present case.

Delay no tool for imposing ‘crushing liabilities’: Court

• The delay in disposal of maintenance proceedings by the judicial system cannot become a tool for imposing crushing retrospective liabilities upon either party.
• Courts are expected to adopt a realistic, pragmatic and equitable approach while determining the commencement of maintenance, the Rajasthan High Court said.
• Maintenance is neither punitive nor retributive in character. It is not intended to punish the husband for matrimonial discord, nor is it designed to create a windfall or a mechanism for the accumulation of wealth.
• Grave financial hardship may be caused on account of the imposition of huge retrospective maintenance liabilities accumulated during the prolonged pendency of maintenance proceedings.
• Such delayed adjudication often results in serious adverse consequences, inasmuch as the person concerned is suddenly burdened with the discharge of substantial lump-sum arrears after several years, apart from the continuing obligation of monthly maintenance.

• The very object of maintenance jurisdiction is to provide immediate succour and to save the claimant from destitution and starvation, the Rajasthan High Court stated.
• Maintenance proceedings, therefore, ought not to be permitted to linger indefinitely.
• In cases where such a delay occurs, the responsibility cannot always be attributed solely to the parties, and the systemic delay in adjudication also cannot be ignored.
• Directing payment of maintenance from the date of application, after an inordinate delay in conclusion of proceedings, may in certain cases operate harshly.
• Such directions may result in an excessively onerous financial burden, particularly upon a salaried person or a person having limited means, who is required to simultaneously clear accumulated arrears as well as continue making monthly payments, the Rajasthan High Court observed.