Mandatory To Award Interest On Amount Of Maintenance: Bombay HC Highlights Non-Compliance Concerns

The High Court delivered this ruling while dismissing a plea by a man challenging an order requiring him to pay ₹1,500 monthly maintenance for his wife and ₹2,000 for their son.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay A Deshmukh emphasized the lack of fear of consequences among defaulting parties. The Court said, “The trial Courts are not awarding interest on maintenance amount. There is no any legal ban to award interest on that amount of maintenance. The husbands or fathers are many a times are not depositing the arrears of maintenance for years together. They have no fear or burden to payment of interest on that amount of maintenance. It is a serious legal mischief in mischief. Section 125 of the CrPC does not prohibit towards maintenance. Therefore, Courts of District Judiciary are expected to award interest on the amount of maintenance, so that these weaker sections of the society will get their maintenance amount expeditiously. It will serve the purpose of speed justice.”

Advocate Madhav K Jadhav appeared for the Respondents.

The Court expressed concern over husbands or fathers who neglect to pay maintenance for extended periods, attributing this to the absence of repercussions for non-compliance. The Court underscored that trial courts often fail to include interest on maintenance amounts, calling it a serious legal oversight.

In response, the High Court asserted that district judiciary must impose interest on maintenance awards to ensure timely receipt by women and children, thereby serving the goal of expeditious justice. The Court added, “Thus, in order to secure their rights fully, effectively and speedily which is an object of justice interest must be awarded which is rationally expected. Their amount of maintenance shall not remain in the hands of the other side which deprives them for maximum period from it. Thus, it is now mandatory to award interest on the amount of maintenance for that this judgment shall be circulated to the District Judiciary of Maharashtra”

Despite the husband's argument that his wife concealed her earnings of ₹12,000 - ₹15,000 from a private company, the Court upheld the maintenance order, stating that the husband's liability remains unaffected by the wife's income. The Court said, “It is meager amount of Rs. 1500/- and Rs. 2000/- p.m. It was not possible for them to maintain themselves out of it. Therefore, merely because she is doing a job in private Company the applicant who is able bodied husband and father cannot be exonerated from the liability to pay the maintenance.”

Consequently, the Court dismissed the husband's revision plea and imposed a ₹5,000 cost on him, payable with 9% interest from July 1, 2024, if not deposited promptly.

Cause Title: X v. Y & Anr., [2024:BHC-AUG:10428]