Savita Rai And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Affairs Lko. And 3 Others

Facts

The applicants, Savita Rai and her daughter, filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, against opposite party nos. 2 to 4, who are the husband, father-in-law, and mother-in-law of applicant no. 1. The complaint alleged physical and mental harassment, leading the applicants to leave their matrimonial home. An FIR under Section 498A IPC was also lodged. The applicants sought compensation and interim maintenance. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate IV, Lucknow, by an order dated 06.02.2025, granted interim maintenance of Rs. 8000/- per month from the date of the order, noting that the husband (opposite party no. 2) is an Assistant Commissioner, GST, earning Rs. 62,546/- per month. The applicants challenged this order, arguing that maintenance should be granted from the date of filing the application.

Held

The Court held that while the Supreme Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Another (supra) has emphasized granting maintenance from the date of application, this principle primarily applies to final orders. The Court noted that interim orders are passed based on urgency and pleadings at the hearing stage, after issuing notices to the opposite party. Granting interim maintenance from the date of application would, in effect, amount to finally allowing the maintenance application at an interim stage, which is not permissible. The Court also observed that the applicants' initial application under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act primarily sought compensation, not maintenance. Therefore, the Court found no infirmity in the trial court's order granting interim maintenance from the date of passing the order, as opposed to the date of filing the application. The Court did not comment on the trial court's jurisdiction to grant Rs. 8000/- per month.

Key Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred in granting interim maintenance from the date of passing the order instead of the date of filing the application, as per Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, read with the principles laid down in Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Another (2021) 2 SCC 324? Petitioner's Argument: The applicants contended that the Supreme Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Another (supra) has observed that maintenance should be granted from the date of filing the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. or any similar enactment. Therefore, the impugned order granting maintenance only from the date of its passing is illegal and arbitrary. Revenue's Argument: The State argued that Section 12 of the Act primarily deals with compensation or damages, and the applicants had prayed for compensation, not maintenance, in their initial application. While acknowledging the Supreme Court's ruling in Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Another (supra) regarding maintenance from the date of application, the State contended that this applies to final orders passed at the conclusion of proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., not interim maintenance. They argued there is no direction from the Apex Court for interim maintenance to be granted from the date of application.