The Bombay High Court has clarified a critical procedural right in maintenance proceedings, holding that enhancement under Section 127 Cr.P.C. must be granted with retrospective effect from the date of application, not the date of the order. This decision resolves longstanding ambiguity and reinforces the principle that procedural delays should not penalize the claimant.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Sangeeta Daspute, sought enhancement of maintenance previously granted under Section 125 Cr.P.C. after a change in circumstances, including the respondent’s increased income and rising cost of living. She filed Criminal M.A. No. 15/2021 before the Family Court, Aurangabad, and succeeded in proving her entitlement. However, the Family Court directed that the enhanced maintenance be paid only from the date of its order, 9 August 2024, rather than from the date she filed her application.
Procedural History
- 2021: Original application for enhancement filed under Section 127 Cr.P.C.
- 2024: Family Court granted enhancement but made it effective from date of order
- 2024: Revision petition filed before Bombay High Court challenging the retrospective commencement
- 2026: High Court reserved judgment on 21 January, pronounced on 22 January
Relief Sought
The applicant sought modification of the Family Court’s order to make the enhanced maintenance payable from the date of her application under Section 127 Cr.P.C., relying on a prior judgment of the same court in Criminal Revision Application No. 43/2017.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 127 Cr.P.C. permits an order of maintenance enhancement to be made effective from the date of application, or whether it must commence only from the date of the order, absent explicit statutory provision.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel for the applicant relied on Criminal Revision Application No. 43/2017 decided by the same bench, which held that while Section 127 Cr.P.C. lacks an express provision like Section 125(2) for backdating, the equitable intent of the law requires that enhancement be granted from the date of application to prevent unjust enrichment of the respondent and undue hardship to the claimant. She further cited Suman Narayan Niphade v. Suresh Narayan Niphade to emphasize judicial discretion must be exercised with objectivity and fairness.
For the Respondent
The respondent’s counsel contended that Section 127 Cr.P.C. is purely a procedural mechanism for modification and contains no language authorizing retrospective operation. He argued that since Section 125(2) explicitly permits backdating, its absence in Section 127 must be interpreted as intentional legislative exclusion. He urged the court to uphold the Family Court’s order as a correct application of statutory text.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a purposive interpretation of Section 127 Cr.P.C., distinguishing it from mere procedural formalities. It noted that while Section 127 does not contain a clause equivalent to Section 125(2), this omission does not negate the inherent power of the court to grant relief from the date of application when justice demands it.
"The Magistrate must demonstrate objectively as to why in any case he is directing the enhanced maintenance to be made payable either from the date of the application or from the date of the order."
The Court emphasized that the Suman Narayan Niphade precedent mandates judicial reasoning in fixing the effective date. The Family Court’s failure to provide any rationale for commencing maintenance from the date of order, rather than application, constituted an arbitrary exercise of discretion. The Court held that delay in adjudication cannot be visited upon the claimant, especially where the applicant has established entitlement and the respondent’s financial capacity has increased.
The Court further observed that Section 127 is a remedial provision designed to ensure continued support, and denying backdated relief would undermine its humanitarian purpose. The absence of an express provision does not equate to prohibition; rather, it invites judicial discretion guided by equity and precedent.
The Verdict
The petitioner won. The Court held that enhancement of maintenance under Section 127 Cr.P.C. must be granted from the date of application unless compelling reasons justify otherwise. The Family Court’s order was modified to make the enhanced maintenance payable from the date of filing, not the date of the order.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Backdating Is the Default Rule
- Practitioners must now argue that Section 127 Cr.P.C. entitles claimants to backdated maintenance as the norm, not the exception
- Courts must record reasons if they deviate from the date of application
- Failure to do so invites revision under Article 227
Judicial Discretion Must Be Reasoned
- Judges must explicitly state why maintenance is not made effective from the application date
- Blanket orders commencing from the date of order are now legally unsustainable
- This applies equally to modifications under Section 127 and interim maintenance orders
Precedent Controls Over Literal Text
- The absence of an express provision in Section 127 does not bar retrospective operation
- Courts may rely on analogous provisions (Section 125(2)) and equitable principles to fill gaps
- This reinforces the doctrine that remedial statutes must be interpreted liberally to protect vulnerable parties
