- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7666 WP No. 36134 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 36134 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: MR. DHRUVA KUMAR, S/O VENKATESH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, RES. AT NO.2, AMBEDKAR NAGARA, 2ND CROSS, RAMANAGARA TOWN, RAMANAGARA-560 064. …PETITIONER (BY SRI K.J GOPI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. PADMA N, W/O DHRUVA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS. 2. KUM. ANDYA, D/O DHRUVA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS, REP. BY HER MOTHER SMT. PADMA N., RES. AT WARD NO. 16, OPP. SIDDESHWAR TEMPLE, AMRUTHAGANGE WATER POINT, NEAR BASAVANAGARI ROAD, CHIKKABALLAPURA TOWN, CHIKKABALLAPUR-562 101. …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 528 OF BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA 2023 PRAYING TO Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7666 WP No. 36134 of 2025 ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, CHIKKABALLAPUR, IN C. MIS. 56/2024, FILED UNDER SECTION 144 OF BNSS VIDE ANNEXURE-B ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FRESH MATTERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the order of the concerned Court directing maintenance at Rs.15,000/- from the date that the husband had deserted the wife or wife deserted the husband, as the case would be. The respondent-wife initiates proceedings before the concerned Court invoking Section 125 of Cr.P.C in Crl.Misc.No.56/2024 seeking maintenance at Rs.50,000/- per month. The concerned Court awards interim maintenance at Rs.15,000/- per month. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the concerned Court has erred in granting maintenance from the date of desertion, but not from the date of application. 3. The law in this regard is too well settled that the maintenance must be granted only from the date of filing the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7666 WP No. 36134 of 2025 application. The Apex Court, in the case of RAJNESH v. NEHA1, has held as follows: "…. …. …. 96. The view that maintenance ought to be granted from the date when the application was made, is based on the rationale that the primary object of maintenance laws is to protect a deserted wife and dependent children from destitution and vagrancy. If maintenance is not paid from the date of application, the party seeking maintenance would be deprived of sustenance, owing to the time taken for disposal of the application, which often runs into several years. …. …. …. 109. The judgments hereinabove reveal the divergent views of different High Courts on the date from which maintenance must be awarded. Even though a judicial discretion is conferred upon the court to grant maintenance either from the date of application or from the date of the order in Section 125(2) CrPC, it would be appropriate to grant maintenance from the date of application in all cases, including Section 125 CrPC. In the practical working of the provisions relating to maintenance, we find that there is significant delay in disposal of the applications for interim maintenance for years on end. It would therefore be in the interests of justice and fair play that maintenance is awarded from the date of the application. 110. In Shail Kumari Devi v. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak [Shail Kumari Devi v. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak, (2008) 9 SCC 632 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 839] , this Court held that the entitlement of maintenance should not be left to the uncertain date of disposal of the case. The enormous delay in disposal of proceedings justifies the award of maintenance from the date of application. In Bhuwan 1 (2021) 2 SCC 324 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7666 WP No. 36134 of 2025 Mohan Singh v. Meena [Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, (2015) 6 SCC 353 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 321 : (2015) 4 SCC (Cri) 200] , this Court held that repetitive adjournments sought by the husband in that case resulted in delay of 9 years in the adjudication of the case. The delay in adjudication was not only against human rights, but also against the basic embodiment of dignity of an individual. The delay in the conduct of the proceedings would require grant of maintenance to date back to the date of application. 111. The rationale of granting maintenance from the date of application finds its roots in the object of enacting maintenance legislations, so as to enable the wife to overcome the financial crunch which occurs on separation from the husband. Financial constraints of a dependent spouse hamper their capacity to be effectively represented before the court. In order to prevent a dependant from being reduced to destitution, it is necessary that maintenance is awarded from the date on which the application for maintenance is filed before the court concerned. 112. In Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse [Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse, (2014) 1 SCC 188 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 51] , the Supreme Court was considering the interpretation of Section 125 CrPC. The Court held : (SCC p. 196, para 13) “13.3. … purposive interpretation needs to be given to the provisions of Section 125 CrPC. While dealing with the application of a destitute wife or hapless children or parents under this provision, the Court is dealing with the marginalised sections of the society. The purpose is to achieve “social justice” which is the constitutional vision, enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India. The Preamble to the Constitution of India clearly signals that we have chosen the democratic path under the rule of law to achieve the goal of securing for all its citizens, justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. It specifically highlights achieving their social justice. Therefore, it becomes the bounden duty of the courts to advance the cause of social justice. While giving interpretation to a - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7666 WP No. 36134 of 2025 particular provision, the court is supposed to bridge the gap between the law and society.” (emphasis supplied) 113. It has therefore become necessary to issue directions to bring about uniformity and consistency in the orders passed by all courts, by directing that maintenance be awarded from the date on which the application was made before the court concerned. The right to claim maintenance must date back to the date of filing the application, since the period during which the maintenance proceedings remained pending is not within the control of the applicant." (Emphasis supplied) 4. In the light of the afore-quoted judgment of the Apex Court, the order is thus modified declaring that the respondent-wife is entitled to maintenance from the date of the application. The petitioner-husband is directed to pay all arrears that have not been paid till now to the respondent-wife and the child. In the event the arrears would not be paid, the respondent-wife is at liberty to initiate proceedings in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7666 WP No. 36134 of 2025 Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE PB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 50