The Bombay High Court has clarified that a deposit made to secure maintenance arrears pending appeal does not remain locked if the appellate court has refused to stay the underlying order. In this case, the wife and child were permitted to withdraw Rs. 5,00,000 deposited by the husband, reinforcing that such deposits serve the immediate welfare of dependents, not merely as procedural formality.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicants, Ragini Makarand Balsurkar (wife) and her child, were granted interim maintenance by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Udgir, in an order dated 16.10.2025. The order directed the husband, Makrand Deepakrao Balsurkar, to pay Rs. 66,000 per month towards maintenance and house rent, along with arrears of Rs. 5,00,000. The husband filed an appeal against this order before the First Appellate Court, seeking stay. The Appellate Court refused to grant stay on the maintenance order.
Key Facts
- The JMFC, Udgir, passed the maintenance order on 16.10.2025.
- The husband filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court, challenging the maintenance order.
- The First Appellate Court refused to grant stay on the maintenance order on an unspecified date prior to 17.03.2026.
- The husband deposited Rs. 5,00,000 as a demand draft on 07.04.2026, in compliance with the High Court’s order dated 17.03.2026.
- The applicants (wife and child) have not received any payment of the arrears despite the order being in force.
- The husband opposes withdrawal of the deposit, arguing the appeal may succeed.
Procedural History
- 16.10.2025: JMFC, Udgir, orders maintenance of Rs. 66,000/month and arrears of Rs. 5,00,000.
- Date unknown (prior to 17.03.2026): First Appellate Court refuses stay on the maintenance order.
- 17.03.2026: Bombay High Court directs husband to deposit Rs. 5,00,000 towards arrears and Rs. 66,000/month as interim maintenance.
- 07.04.2026: Husband deposits Rs. 5,00,000 via demand draft with the High Court.
- 20.04.2026: Applicants file Criminal Application No. 1300 of 2026 seeking withdrawal of the deposited amount.
- 20.04.2026: Simultaneously, husband files Criminal Writ Petition No. 350 of 2026 seeking modification of the monthly deposit direction.
Relief Sought
The applicants sought permission to withdraw the Rs. 5,00,000 deposited with the High Court. The husband sought modification of the monthly deposit requirement from depositing with the High Court to depositing directly with the JMFC, Udgir.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a deposit made to secure maintenance arrears, following a refusal of stay by the appellate court, may be withdrawn by the beneficiary pending the final disposal of the appeal.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The applicants argued that the deposit was made solely to secure their immediate financial interests, as the appellate court had already refused to stay the maintenance order. They emphasized that the purpose of such deposits under Section 125 CrPC is to ensure timely support to dependents, and withholding the amount defeats the very object of interim relief. They cited the principle that maintenance is a statutory right meant to prevent destitution.
For the Respondent/State
The husband contended that since the appeal is still pending, allowing withdrawal would prejudice his position if the appeal were to succeed. He argued that the deposit was a condition of the High Court’s interim order and should remain in escrow until final adjudication, citing the doctrine of status quo.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the deposit and the context in which it was ordered. It noted that the First Appellate Court had already declined to stay the maintenance order, indicating that the JMFC’s decision was prima facie valid and enforceable. The Court observed that the deposit was not a penalty or security for potential liability, but a mechanism to ensure the beneficiaries received the arrears awarded.
"The deposit was directed only to secure the interest of the applicants, and not as a condition precedent to the enforceability of the order."
The Court held that permitting withdrawal would not prejudice the husband’s appeal, as the amount could be adjusted or refunded if the appeal succeeded. Conversely, denying withdrawal would cause undue hardship to the wife and child, who are entitled to immediate support under Section 125 CrPC. The Court emphasized that maintenance proceedings are quasi-civil in nature but grounded in social justice, and procedural technicalities must not override the welfare of dependents.
The Court further noted that the husband’s request to deposit monthly maintenance directly with the JMFC was unopposed by the applicants, and thus, the modification was justified for practical convenience.
The Verdict
The applicants succeeded. The Court allowed the withdrawal of Rs. 5,00,000 deposited by the husband, directing that the amount be disbursed to the wife and child within one week of the order. The Court modified the earlier order to permit the husband to deposit Rs. 66,000 monthly directly with the JMFC, Udgir, instead of the High Court. The Court appointed Mr. S. P. Katneshwarkar as Mediator and directed the parties to appear before him on 27.04.2026, with a report due within three weeks thereafter.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Withdrawal of Maintenance Deposits Is Permissible When Stay Is Refused
- Practitioners may now confidently seek withdrawal of interim maintenance deposits when the appellate court has refused stay, even if the appeal is pending.
- Courts are expected to prioritize the immediate needs of dependents over procedural caution when the underlying order remains enforceable.
Monthly Maintenance Deposits May Be Redirected for Practicality
- Where the beneficiary has no objection, courts may permit deposit of monthly maintenance directly with the trial court to streamline enforcement and reduce litigation burden.
- This reduces delays and ensures beneficiaries receive funds without needing to approach the appellate court for release.
Mediation Is Encouraged in Family Disputes
- Courts are increasingly appointing mediators in maintenance cases, even at the appellate stage, to promote settlement.
- Practitioners should consider proposing mediation early in such proceedings to avoid prolonged litigation.
