Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena

In this impassioned pronouncement on marital maintenance rights, Justice Dipak Misra authoritatively settled that maintenance under Section 125(2) CrPC (now Section 144(2) BNSS) must ordinarily be awarded from the date of application. The Supreme Court observed that the concept of maintenance is rooted in social justice and constitutional dignity under Article 21. A woman who is abandoned or forced out of her matrimonial home is entitled to live in the same standard of dignity as her husband, not in hand-to-mouth destitution. Delays in disposing of maintenance petitions in family courts often span five to nine years; awarding maintenance only from the date of the order effectively rewards the husband for prolonging litigation. The Court held that awarding maintenance from the date of application is the norm, and any departure must be justified by exceptional recorded reasons.

• Maintenance from Date of Application as the Norm: Section 125(2) CrPC interpreted to mandate maintenance from the filing date.
• Judicial Delay Cannot Penalize Wives: Systemic delay in family courts must not deprive deserted families of sustenance for past years.
• Concept of Maintenance Grounded in Dignity: Maintenance is not a charitable dole; it is a fundamental human right to live with dignity.
• Discouraging Dilatory Husband Tactics: Prevents defaulting spouses from delaying trial to avoid accumulated financial liability.
• Harmonization with Article 21: Expressed that economic deprivation of a deserted wife violates the constitutional guarantee of life.

The appellant Bhuwan Mohan Singh married respondent Meena in 1983, and a son was born from the wedlock.

Following severe cruelty and dowry demands, the wife was driven out of the matrimonial home in 1988.

The wife filed a petition for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC in 2002. The family court took nearly nine years to decide the matter, eventually awarding maintenance in 2011.

The Family Court awarded maintenance only from the date of the order, denying nine years of arrears without assigning any reason.

The High Court of Uttarakhand modified the order and directed that maintenance be paid from the date of the application.

The husband appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that Section 125(2) CrPC grants discretion to the court, and maintenance cannot be routinely awarded from the date of application.

The concept of sustenance does not necessarily mean to lead the life of an animal, feel like an unperson to be thrown into a corner. It has been the consistent view of this Court that an abandoned wife and child must be placed in a position to lead a life with dignity and self-respect. Section 125 of the Code was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish and financial suffering of women who are compelled to leave their matrimonial homes. It is the sanctified duty of the husband to maintain his wife and children. Under Section 125(2) of the CrPC, the court is empowered to award maintenance either from the date of the order or from the date of the application. When a petition under Section 125 takes nine years to be decided, it is a tragedy of the judicial system. To say that maintenance should be granted only from the date of the order would be putting a premium on the dilatory tactics of the husband. The delay in disposal of the application cannot be attributed to the wife. If the court awards maintenance only from the date of the order, the wife and child are left high and dry for all the intervening years during which they survived in penury. Therefore, maintenance must ordinarily be granted from the date of the application. The judgment of the High Court is affirmed.

• Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324: Landmark 2-Judge Bench ruling codified Bhuwan Mohan Singh as a uniform national rule: maintenance MUST be granted from date of application across all statutes.
• Aditi alias Mithi v. Jitesh Sharma (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1451: Applied Bhuwan Mohan Singh and Rajnesh to mandate child maintenance from filing date.
• Sanju Devi v. State of Bihar (2018) SCC OnLine SC 2940: Followed Bhuwan Mohan Singh to set aside an order denying retrospective arrears.
• Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi (2022) 8 SCC 90: Reaffirmed the right to live with dignity under domestic violence laws.