The Allahabad High Court has clarified that interim maintenance orders under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, cannot automatically trigger liability for arrears dating back to the filing of the application without affording the respondent an opportunity to be heard. This ruling reinforces procedural fairness in family maintenance proceedings.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The revisionist, Vimal Gupta, challenged the order dated 12.02.2026 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ghaziabad, in Criminal Case No. 777/2024 (Registration No. 1544/2024), filed by Smt. Seema Gupta (wife) and their minor son under Section 144 B.N.S.S. The Family Court had directed the revisionist to pay monthly maintenance to both the wife and son, with arrears calculated from the date of filing the application.
Key Facts
- The application under Section 144 B.N.S.S. was filed on an unspecified date prior to 12.02.2026
- The Family Court passed an interim maintenance order on 12.02.2026
- The order directed payment of maintenance from the date of application, not from the date of order
- The revisionist, who claims to be unemployed, contested the quantum and retrospective application of maintenance
- No evidence of income or financial capacity was recorded by the Family Court before awarding arrears
- The revisionist submitted representations regarding his unemployment status, which were not addressed in the order
Procedural History
- Date of filing of application under Section 144 B.N.S.S.: Prior to 12.02.2026 (exact date not specified in judgment)
- 12.02.2026: Family Court, Ghaziabad, passed interim maintenance order directing payment from date of application
- 28.03.2026: Criminal Revision No. 2834 of 2026 filed before the Allahabad High Court
- 15.05.2026: Judgment delivered by the High Court
Relief Sought
The revisionist sought:
- Setting aside of the Family Court’s order granting maintenance arrears from the date of application
- Suspension of arrears liability until final adjudication
- Opportunity to present his financial position before any final maintenance order is passed
- Direction to the Family Court to decide the matter expeditiously
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 permits a Family Court to award maintenance arrears from the date of application without providing the respondent an opportunity to be heard on his financial capacity and defence.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that:
- The Family Court erred in awarding arrears from the date of application without recording evidence of the revisionist’s income or allowing him to contest the claim
- The revisionist is unemployed and incapable of meeting the maintenance obligation retroactively
- The order violates the principles of natural justice under Article 21 of the Constitution
- The court should have limited the maintenance order to prospective payments until final adjudication
- He offered to pay maintenance from the date of the order (12.02.2026) and sought to keep arrears from the application date in abeyance pending final hearing
For the Respondent/State
The State did not file a separate written submission. The Government Advocate appeared and did not oppose the revisionist’s request for a stay on retrospective arrears, acknowledging the need for procedural fairness.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of proceedings under Section 144 B.N.S.S., which provides for interim maintenance pending final disposal of proceedings under Chapter XII. The Court noted that while the provision empowers the court to grant interim relief, it does not authorize automatic retrospective liability without due process.
"The right to be heard is not a mere formality but a substantive guarantee under Article 21. Awarding arrears from the date of application without affording the respondent an opportunity to present his financial position or contest the claim amounts to a denial of natural justice."
The Court distinguished between the power to grant interim maintenance and the power to determine final liability. It held that interim orders are provisional and cannot crystallize into enforceable arrears without a full hearing. The Family Court’s failure to consider the revisionist’s claim of unemployment and to record evidence before imposing retrospective liability was legally unsustainable.
The Court also emphasized the statutory mandate under Section 144 to dispose of applications expeditiously, noting that undue delay in final adjudication prejudices both parties.
The Verdict
The revision was disposed of with the following directions:
- The revisionist shall pay monthly maintenance as ordered on 12.02.2026 to the wife and son, effective from that date
- Arrears from 12.02.2026 to May 2026 shall be cleared in full by May 2026
- Arrears from the date of application until 12.02.2026 shall be kept in abeyance
- The Family Court shall decide the application under Section 144 B.N.S.S. within six months from the date of judgment
- The Family Court may determine the final maintenance liability either from the date of application or from the date of order, after providing a full opportunity of hearing to both parties
What This Means For Similar Cases
Interim Maintenance Does Not Automatically Create Retroactive Liability
- Practitioners must argue that any claim for maintenance arrears prior to the interim order requires a separate evidentiary hearing
- Courts cannot presume financial capacity or default without recorded proof
- Applications under Section 144 B.N.S.S. must be treated as provisional until final adjudication
Procedural Fairness Is Non-Negotiable in Family Proceedings
- Failure to hear the respondent on income, assets, or employment status renders the order liable to be set aside
- Courts must record reasons for rejecting claims of unemployment or financial hardship
- The burden of proof for maintenance claims lies with the applicant, but the respondent must be heard before arrears are imposed
Expeditious Disposal Is Statutorily Mandated
- Family Courts must adhere to the six-month timeline under Section 144 B.N.S.S. for final disposal
- Adjournments must be strictly regulated; repeated delays violate the spirit of the provision
- Parties should be directed to file affidavits of income and expenses at the earliest stage to avoid protracted hearings
